Topic: Draggy Combat
Started by: a flight of stairs
Started on: 10/1/2010
Board: Playtesting
On 10/1/2010 at 2:50am, a flight of stairs wrote:
Draggy Combat
In a recent playtest of mine, the only criticism (other than crappy storylines, whcih I was already aware of) was that combat between two moderate sized groups dragged on too much. The system works as follows
In melee - the attacker adds 2d10 to their skill, and the defender adds 2d10 to either their skill (to block) or their speed (to dodge). You deal your strength as base damage, modified by your weapon (if any) and the place you hit them.
At a distance - the attacker adds 2d10 to their skill, and the defender adds d20 to their luck (to not get hit - the weapons involved are not the sort you can dodge, so I figure not getting hit is more a matter of luck than anything). Ranged weapons have a damage stat, which is modified by where you hit your opponent.
Whether you hit a targeted body part is determined entirely by your roll - certain rolls (if you hit) result in different body parts being hit.
I can't see any reason this would drag, other than the high hitpoints of certain races (such as the ones involved in the critisised combat), is this issue unavoidable without good GM planning? Would players consider 45-minute fights a problem? I don't want to take away from the hitpoints of said races as it would wreck cannon.
Having said that, it worked brilliantly when moderate/large parties went up against one incredibly powerful enemy.
On 10/1/2010 at 5:16am, Chris_Chinn wrote:
Re: Draggy Combat
Hi AFOS,
Some rpgs set up for short fights, some set up for long fights- different players like different things, so there's no objective "Is 45 minutes too long?" kind of answer that can be given.
That said, there are -some- things which make for less fun during fights and makes them seem to take forever.
For example, on the tiny fragment of the mechanics you explained, does player tactics or choice come into the matter, or is it really just flat roll vs. flat roll? If there's little or no choices to be made, mechanically, it's like playing the card game "War", where it really depends on luck and you just go back and forth and make no choices.
Second, what does a roll create in the imaginary fiction? Like, if you attack and someone defends is it just "You miss!" or do the rules set up something like, "You miss and leave yourself open, now they have +2 to hit you!" or some other thing that increases the tension?
See, the real trick to any combat (or any extended resolution system) is how it contributes to players making choices and interesting things happening in the imaginary fiction while you're playing. If nothing interesting happens, it feels like it takes forever and people just want to see the end. If tons of neat stuff is going on, then 3 hours disappear in a flash.
You also mention "canon" - which I assume means being faithful to the gameworld you have in mind. Maybe something like "Ogres can take about 10 hits from a sword", or something, right?
Consider if a single roll doesn't represent a single swing of the sword, but 3 swings? If every roll represents about 3 times the amount of time/attacks/etc. then you could reduce the hitpoints by 1/3rd and play would flow faster and still remain true to the ideas you're putting forth. (I just pulled x3 and 1/3rd out my ass, any number would do).
Old D&D had 1 minute long combat rounds and Tunnels & Trolls had 2 minute long combat rounds - so even a single roll represented a big tussle before finally dealing a serious blow.
Chris
On 10/1/2010 at 8:57am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: Draggy Combat
I can't see any reason this would drag
Did you run this or did someone else and they just told you about the playtest?
I mean, if you ran it, you should have been able to see if people were dithering around in doing it, or if they were pretty much doing it quite promptly (for a leasure activity)
In terms of your structure, you have 'nothing happens' results built in. They dodge - nothing happens. They block - nothing happens. Except it takes more time. Although you might like the PC's dodging and blocking, it might be worth making enemies who have forgone the capacity to dodge or block for more raw firepower (or if you must, more health - though again this makes combat go longer...though atleast the players will see definite health damage progress on the enemy rather than just missing and doing nothing). When the enemies forgo dodging and blocking, things will go alot faster (for single bosses, perhaps keep the blocks and dodges as it sounds like it's fine there). I think eggshells with hammers would be best - either they leave a mark and die, or they die and the players give a sigh of relief they died before having a chance to hit.
I agree with Chris on player tactics - if there are none, there really isn't much point having lots and lots of rolls. You could collapse them all into one roll. Perhaps there's a feeling of the battle raging, but that feeling can fade fairly quickly as the player realises they are passive. I also think where Chris suggests working on the fiction the player can add to with each roll would be something to think about.
Did you run the session?
On 10/4/2010 at 9:48pm, Simon C wrote:
RE: Re: Draggy Combat
To cut handling time, you could make it so only one party rolls dice in each round. Two people rolling 2d10 is the same as one person rolling 4d10, effectively.
On 10/9/2010 at 12:03am, a flight of stairs wrote:
RE: Re: Draggy Combat
Obviously a player with higher speed will have a better chance of dodging than they will blocking. Also, if you block, you may counter-attack, and your opponent suffers a defensive penalty. I was worried that it would degenerate to constant counter-attacks (as a counter-attack could be counter-attacked), but the defensive penalty (-d4 to all stats) was enough that no players got a chance to 'counter-counter-attack'. Frankly, I like the first reply, about combat taking a while, and different people liking different things.
Yes, I ran it myself, other than certain races having a ton of hitpoints, that's it (and that was probably more the problem, a crappy campaign, sorry for wasting your time)