JochenL
CL Byte Sprite
Staff member
Adamantium WoA
Wizard of Story
Wizard of Combat
Gamer Lifestyle
Borderland Explorer
Conflict is a/the central part of stories.
Armed conflict is often the focus of RPGs.
I like detailed combat rules (like GURPS or Pathfinder) as they give me the feeling of versatility and being part of combat's "minute" actions. But those rules have downsides, too. Non-system-oriented players have a hard time internalizing them. With many options, analysis-paralysis is likely. Combat starts to drag.
On the other hand, I once played a game (I don't remember the name) where you got bonus dice to resolve your action when you described it in colorful detail. That was fun, started detailed combat descriptions, and derailed into non-sensical, over-the-top narratives. As a result, less extroverted players lost even more of the limelight, and their characters sucked.
I like Fate Conflict as it is descriptive but rules-bound (you describe actions based on your skills, stunts, and aspects written on your character sheet). This approach is more "meta" and thereby better supports introverts. It sometimes breaks immersion, though.
What is essential about combat or conflicts anyway?
I think it's the decisions you make.
Will you cover your brother's back, or will you run to aid the sexy halfling maid in distress? Will you kill the wives and children (sneaking into your back) of the goblin army that killed your comrades and destroyed your walls, or will you arrest them and share food and water already stretched thin?
If I want to equally spend time on the story, system, and setting in sessions, how important are combats in a game? Can you shorten them without removing the spotlight from the warriors or betraying your rules? Should you choose another system that is not that detailed and therefore sacrifices the depth of this aspect of the game?
I am just thinking out loud here.
Please share your thoughts on the topic!
Armed conflict is often the focus of RPGs.
I like detailed combat rules (like GURPS or Pathfinder) as they give me the feeling of versatility and being part of combat's "minute" actions. But those rules have downsides, too. Non-system-oriented players have a hard time internalizing them. With many options, analysis-paralysis is likely. Combat starts to drag.
On the other hand, I once played a game (I don't remember the name) where you got bonus dice to resolve your action when you described it in colorful detail. That was fun, started detailed combat descriptions, and derailed into non-sensical, over-the-top narratives. As a result, less extroverted players lost even more of the limelight, and their characters sucked.
I like Fate Conflict as it is descriptive but rules-bound (you describe actions based on your skills, stunts, and aspects written on your character sheet). This approach is more "meta" and thereby better supports introverts. It sometimes breaks immersion, though.
What is essential about combat or conflicts anyway?
I think it's the decisions you make.
Will you cover your brother's back, or will you run to aid the sexy halfling maid in distress? Will you kill the wives and children (sneaking into your back) of the goblin army that killed your comrades and destroyed your walls, or will you arrest them and share food and water already stretched thin?
If I want to equally spend time on the story, system, and setting in sessions, how important are combats in a game? Can you shorten them without removing the spotlight from the warriors or betraying your rules? Should you choose another system that is not that detailed and therefore sacrifices the depth of this aspect of the game?
I am just thinking out loud here.
Please share your thoughts on the topic!