Combat verus Role Playing

[Spaceresearcher]

Hello all,
With the flurry of questions on combat and porting this piece of equipment from version z to version y etc, I've been curious as to how other fellow Travellers like to game out there battle rounds.

Myself I prefer to do roles based on the characters proficiency and just use say a range table if it's a long range shot. For me, working out angles and fatigue factors etc etc, is a bit of a bore that can detract more than enhance a game but reading some of the queries on combat, I've been rather amazed that a lot of gamers seem to enjoy number crunching and lot's of dice roles.

I guess it all depends on how much time you have to play your adventures at the end of the day.

Never the less I'm sure there's some gold to be found in the number crunching too.

So when do you think it changes from being an RPG to a strategy game? I've also been incorporating Power Projection into my games for use as a starship combat resolution system and it's great. It works well and the results are rewarding(even if I did loose one of my pirate ships to an asteroid collision due to loosing the ships main computer for one round. lol). Power Projection has elements of the classic Mayday game mixed with Full Thrust rules. Also there's a great range of large Traveller warships available from Ad Astra games.


Please do share your views on this ever evolving aspect of gaming.

 

[robject]

I am nearly a total loss when it comes to combat. Recently, one of my friends gave me some very good advice about it, and told me that combat is just another part of the plotline.

This means, when you boil it down, that intentional combat scenarios are not really intended to kill your players -- though they may die or be captured. The scenarios are intended to move the plot along. On the other hand, random combat scenarios perhaps might not be as useful for the plotline (depends on the resourcefulness of the referee, perhaps), but the outcome is generally to have a good time.

Now my latest problem is: how to design security into places which are supposed to be protected. Baronial estates, not to put too fine a point on it.

 

[Shonner]

I don't use combat rounds or initiative. The players tell me what their situation is and what they want to do for combat. I just referee their actions as I would any other task. The players role-play their movements and ammo re-loading, etc. The time it takes a player to tell me what he's doing, he's already done it basically. Players that are quiet are assumed to be doing nothing.

I'll sometimes interrupt what a player is telling me they are doing by stating what an NPC is doing to either them or another player. Players may interrupt each other. Too much talking over each other leads to some cool chaotic situations. Not all players are near each other. And without radio chatter, some players don't know what is going on ahead or behind them. The combat is pretty much real-time, and isn't played any slower than regular die rolling for skill checks.

 

[Murdoc]

I guess I'm one of those number crunching types, which means I depend on a decent set of rules to keep combat going. But I (and my players) like the immersion that coming up with these details gives. As an example I'll describe a custom form of initiative I use in most of my games, that I haven't seen anywhere else before. After the players make their rolls (however in the game that is done), the person with the lowest roll has to declare what they intend to do first. Then the person with the next highest declares, all the way up. Once done, the person with the highest roll gets to actually do what they declared, going back down the line. The reason is because it has always seemed weird to me that in normal roll-high initiative systems, while the person with the highest roll goes first, they also have the least idea what's going on. They don't know if thug #3 is actually intending to shoot at them, or one of the other PCs. If they did know, like they would in my system, they could decide to duck for cover if they are being fired at, or shoot at the guy if they are firing at someone else (because ducking wouldn't do anyone any good at that point). Thus the person with the lowest roll has the least idea what's going on, and has to choose based on that lack of knowledge, while the person with the highest roll knows the most, and as we all know, knowledge is one of the most powerful weapons in any fight.

So yes, it does take a bit longer to do all that (especially in a 12 person shoot-out), but we have better ability to make tactical decisions, and far more idea what the combat actually looks like. I guess it's because I am used to that level of immersion that this one-minute combat round thing grates on me.

 

[Licheking]

Your initiative system isn't unique, Battletech has been using it since its inception, and Earthdawn, L5R and Rolemaster have the same Declare actions before you roll initiative that you describe although not in any specific order, but you can cancel actions at a small penalty to do something else if the situation changes before your action comes up.

 

[Licheking]

I like granular combat, thats why i have returned to a 6 second combat round (from the MT rules), although still using the T5 rules, which so far works well.

I use armour degradation and different effects for different weapon damage types, movement rates and ammo and reloading times. This all adds up to a very intense combat experience for the players.

I also allow those characters with Tactics skill to spend 1 of their Mod points to predict the action of one of their opponents. This gives the character a very general idea of that opponents action for the round, IE if they are going to hide or attack or do something none attack related, move go for something in a pack that sort of thing. This gives the players a degree of control over the combat and allows for more use of the Tactics skill within the combat environment. I allow Mod Points to be spent to defend against the same sort of use as well.

 

[robject]

I like the idea of armor degradation -- it makes sense, players can track it, they can fret over it, and they can pay for repairs.

My other constraint is that each combat session can't take more than 10 or 15 minutes. Our group just doesn't have that kind of time.

When Armor Degradation Doesn't Work

Armor Degradation seems too slow when it's chipped away, one point at a time.
It seems too fast when it's totally eliminated. Of course. But, it also seems too fast when it's halved.

When Armor Degradation Might Work

It just might work when it's reduced by the amount that spills over. Our group will be trying that particular house rule tonight.

 

[thalassogen]

Hm, it never occured to me to just "handwave"/narrate through combat (or any other situation).

I like firm rules supporting the game action and I like my rules to support the feel of each trigger pull or sword swing. Thereby everyone can narrate what he is doing and apply the rules to resolve his action.

That does not necessarily mean number crunching! But it does mean that a combat round is well below one minute in length and that the narrated action will yield plausible results.

I like GURPS combat for its "techy" graininess (mind you, it is far less grainy than e.g. Phoenix Command). There is not too much number crunching there; initiative/action sequence is determined once at the beginning of combat; you move; you shoot (maybe one round, maybe a few at different targets, maybe a burst or just spraying an area) and roll just once per target; and if you hit, you roll for damage; next character. Really fast, as long as anyone knows what to do.

I like FATE combat for its narrative possibilities - with one simple set of rules you can represent so much action that I feel well equipped for all fights to come. Order of action is established at the beginning of combat, you roll to hit, target rolls to defend, if you are higher you hit, the difference is the basic "stress" applied to the target.

Both systems allow for armor, different weapons and many possible tricks/actions/maneuvers/etc. - one is more techy (aka "grounded" physically) about it and one is more narrative about it. Both let combat just flow from narration to result without trumping (my) suspension of disbelieve. Both need no GM house-ruling anything "clunky", in fact this can be gamed GM-less if need be.

 

[Shonner]

I still want combat check rolls from players. But I don't enforce any round-robin die rolling. That's just boring manual turn-based attrition through initiative, which takes much longer than any real-time combat. My group prefers real-time.

 

[taustin]

Now my latest problem is: how to design security into places which are supposed to be protected. Baronial estates, not to put too fine a point on it.

Have the party be hired by a Baron, and put in charge of his security. Take notes. Cackle and rub your hands together, but not until later.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

One minor problem...

Have the party be hired by a Baron, and put in charge of his security. Take notes. Cackle and rub your hands together, but not until later.

Well, that is one take, but sadly he can't do that. The players are the folks breaking into said "evil" baron's estate.

 

[rancke]

Well, that is one take, but sadly he can't do that. The players are the folks breaking into said "evil" baron's estate.

He can ask some other roleplayers to do it.


Hans

 

[SpaceBadger]

He can ask some other roleplayers to do it.

Actually, he already did that.

 

[Ector]

For me, working out angles and fatigue factors etc etc, is a bit of a bore that can detract more than enhance a game but reading some of the queries on combat, I've been rather amazed that a lot of gamers seem to enjoy number crunching and lot's of dice roles.

This question is very important, thanks for asking it!

A good RPG combat rules should emphasize "status changing", not the simple decrease of HP and fatigue. Status changing can be:

• Killing/disabling one of combatants
• Inflicting a wound causing degrade of combat abilities
• Applying a drug than enhances combat abilities
• End of ammo for some combatants, forcing the weapon switch
• Activation of environmental effects like smoke grenades
• Changing of combatants' goals (i.e. "Don't let him go away!" or "Take him alive!"
• ... and so on

More status changes = more interesting combat. The ideal combat has a lot of status changes and almost no number-cruhching. But the ideal doesn't exist, you know.

So when do you think it changes from being an RPG to a strategy game?

That's simple. Character interaction is RPG. Status changing encourages role-playing. But the rules like "charge" or "flank" in D&D encourage strategy gaming. If you want RPG, your characters should never calculate the best path on a map (if they are trying, you're doing something wrong).

 

[Licheking]

When Armor Degradation Might Work

It just might work when it's reduced by the amount that spills over. Our group will be trying that particular house rule tonight.

You can try my way which is to reduce the armour by the effect dice of the weapon. For example if a weapon does Bullet-5 reduce the armour by 5. This works well in my games but may not be for everyone. I have designed specific sheets for combat which allow the players to record this sort of thing on them so its easy for everyone to keep track off.

 

[cuTTer]

You can try my way which is to reduce the armour by the effect dice of the weapon. For example if a weapon does Bullet-5 reduce the armour by 5. This works well in my games but may not be for everyone. I have designed specific sheets for combat which allow the players to record this sort of thing on them so its easy for everyone to keep track off.

That seems like a neat mechanic LK, thanks for sharing.

 

[CosmicGamer]

If you want RPG, your characters should never calculate the best path on a map (if they are trying, you're doing something wrong).

Never? Is not tactics and strategy something that can be role played? Should every character just "Leroy", guns a blazin, and never think and discuss things with the other characters?

Perhaps you meant PLAYERS should never calculate the best path on a map?

Although, technically they do need to do it for their characters...

 

[Reban]

I'm interested in military scenarios and adventures but contrary to what you might think the actual combat resolution bit is only a small piece of my game.

First of all if my players are setting out on a combat operation I expect them to put some thought into planning. I get them to consider what they are likely to face and what equipment and tactics they might use. If they fail to plan they should plan to fail (or at least to blunder into many ambushes and obstacles on the way to their objective).

Most engagements I run can be roleplayed most of the way through with actual combat mechanics coming in only when really needed. Take a scenario where a squad is patrolling and is engaged at range by a single sniper. I may or may not roll the sniper's first shot, if not I can describe how they hear the crack thump of the bullet and electronic warnings start to buzz in their ears. What I'm looking for next is the players reactions. Where do they take cover, who tries to spot the sniper, is anyone left out in the open? If my Ref controlled sniper sees that someone is out in the open I'll roll to hit otherwise I'll describe bullets striking their cover.

Maybe now the squad calls in drones or air support, maybe it won't be available. I'll ask for skill checks from the character acting as FO. Now if they actually want to assault the sniper's position as the smoke clears thats where I switch to "combat" mode and we'll map it out and consider ranges and combat rounds, who has the initiative the PCs or the NPC Sniper? Can he fire and reload faster than the PCs? That is best handled through combat resolution rather than roleplay.

Long story short: Players progress the story with their minds in roleplay but I use combat rules to fairly decide the outcome.

 

[Ector]

Never? Is not tactics and strategy something that can be role played? Should every character just "Leroy", guns a blazin, and never think and discuss things with the other characters?

Oh, I mean that players shouldn't do that if their characters are personally involved in combat. When you are trying to shoot at the enemy and survive, you don't think about the best routes on the map.
If your character is a General commanding his troops, he should obviously analyze the map and make decisions. But such situations are rare.
I'm sick and tired of the rules forcing players to play strategic games. "Can I charge there? Let's calculate...no, the stone is on the way. Will I get flanking here? Let's calculate...yes, you will. Can I move there without attacks of opportunity? Let's calculate..." and so on. The examples are from D&D/Pathfinder rules, which are far from RPG.

 

[Licheking]

I like to put a time limit on how long the players get to decide what they are doing in combat based on a combat rounds length in the system I'm using. If i have a map and miniatures then i also limit how long they get to look at the map this makes combat faster and more tense as players try to remember where the bad guys were/are and how to get to them and neutralize them.

For T5 i just describe the scene in the most general terms and then give the players 30 seconds to decide what they are doing and then get on with the combat in rounds. This has created lulls in combat where both sides try to find out where each other is, by making perception (Vision/Hearing) rolls and a furious series of shots and movement and then a lull to see what effect it had.