Comments on: RPG Combat and Concentration of Fire http://webamused.com/bumblers/2009/12/14/rpg-combat-and-concentration-of-fire/ The adventures of the Sunday gaming group Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:38:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joshua http://webamused.com/bumblers/2009/12/14/rpg-combat-and-concentration-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-1253 Joshua Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:14:20 +0000 http://webamused.com/bumblers/?p=1187#comment-1253 It's true it's not <i>entirely</i> unrealistic, but it would take elite soldiers with high-tech gear and constant real-time communications to approach the kind of total battle-field awareness that typical dungeon delvers operating by flickering torchlight routinely achieve. But the players have fun, which trumps considerations of realism for me. Increasing the level of abstraction is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of as too high a cost. It's not added complexity (if anything, it's simpler), it's that the abstractions get in the way of the players being creative and thinking about the situation in concrete terms. I like them trying to trip things with ropes or blind them with bags of salt much more than I dislike the way they have eyes in the back of their head and communicate instant changes in plans telepathically. Reducing the stakes is often a good idea...not every battle should be to the death; I'm very much in favor of enemies sparing and perhaps ransoming the fallen where possible, and having adventures where the fate of the entire world isn't at stake. But it's a balancing act--playing for low stakes is often not as compelling <i>because</i> the stakes are low. On the other hand you never want the players to feel punished by the outcomes, whatever they are.... It’s true it’s not entirely unrealistic, but it would take elite soldiers with high-tech gear and constant real-time communications to approach the kind of total battle-field awareness that typical dungeon delvers operating by flickering torchlight routinely achieve. But the players have fun, which trumps considerations of realism for me.

Increasing the level of abstraction is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of as too high a cost. It’s not added complexity (if anything, it’s simpler), it’s that the abstractions get in the way of the players being creative and thinking about the situation in concrete terms. I like them trying to trip things with ropes or blind them with bags of salt much more than I dislike the way they have eyes in the back of their head and communicate instant changes in plans telepathically.

Reducing the stakes is often a good idea…not every battle should be to the death; I’m very much in favor of enemies sparing and perhaps ransoming the fallen where possible, and having adventures where the fate of the entire world isn’t at stake. But it’s a balancing act–playing for low stakes is often not as compelling because the stakes are low. On the other hand you never want the players to feel punished by the outcomes, whatever they are….

]]> By: John Kim http://webamused.com/bumblers/2009/12/14/rpg-combat-and-concentration-of-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-1250 John Kim Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:42:17 +0000 http://webamused.com/bumblers/?p=1187#comment-1250 Fighting like a well-oiled machine isn't always entirely unrealistic. One solution as far as realism goes is to provide the PCs with qualities, training, and/or powers that help them fight like a well-oiled machine. It's easy to arrange for NPCs to not fight like well-oiled machines. On the other hand, if you want non-efficient PCs, I can think of two potential solutions. One is to reduce the stakes. If the players know that they aren't going to be punished with un-fun play for messing up (i.e. "Shut up, Fred, you're unconscious"), then they're more likely to have fun doing stupid things. Another is to increase the level of abstraction. i.e. Don't have players specify where they are second-by-second on an exact map, for example. For example, the card game Up Front argued that the random, unexpected terrain of the card game was more realistic than the more detailed tactical game. The problem with this is that abstract combat can be dull. .-= John Kim´s last blog ..<a href="http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/76817.html" rel="nofollow">ACNW and other Fall 2009 Convention Reports</a> =-. Fighting like a well-oiled machine isn’t always entirely unrealistic. One solution as far as realism goes is to provide the PCs with qualities, training, and/or powers that help them fight like a well-oiled machine. It’s easy to arrange for NPCs to not fight like well-oiled machines.

On the other hand, if you want non-efficient PCs, I can think of two potential solutions.

One is to reduce the stakes. If the players know that they aren’t going to be punished with un-fun play for messing up (i.e. “Shut up, Fred, you’re unconscious”), then they’re more likely to have fun doing stupid things.

Another is to increase the level of abstraction. i.e. Don’t have players specify where they are second-by-second on an exact map, for example. For example, the card game Up Front argued that the random, unexpected terrain of the card game was more realistic than the more detailed tactical game. The problem with this is that abstract combat can be dull.
.-= John Kim´s last blog ..ACNW and other Fall 2009 Convention Reports =-.

]]>