- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
- Messages
- 36,544
- Reaction score
- 108,581
I'm reminded of a game of Greek Myths I encountered years ago, I can't recall the name off the tip of the tongue. It put a strong empasis on position in combat, but it was abstracted, such that you played out combats on a checkered board. Fun, but a bit too boardgame over role-playing (it bears a strong resemblance to the combat in Kingdom Death, which is great fun, but firmly steeped in the realm of miniatures wargame). Anyways, that's neither here nor there.
I think you're definitely onto something with this...
I've long been an advocate of the former, I prefer very quick and loose combats, and I think this is where far too often the "rules writer" butts heads with practical gameplay. Many times I've come up with elaborate combat systems in an attempt to simulate the varied aspects of a combat encounter, only to find that in a game I would ignore them as superfluous. As long as the players feel the freedom that multiple choices have meaning, they will engage a combat creatively. The more codified rules presented, I've found, the more there is a tedency to try and identify one "optimal" option and repeat and nauseum.
But the latter is an interesting point. I'd almost be tempted to offer that caveat that it's not simply choice, but "tactical choice", insofar as the tension of combat can be increased/replicated by varying elements of risk/reward. In other words, It seems like the kind of combat that you want to encourage is one that rewards players for taking risks.
I think you're definitely onto something with this...
Sleepyscholar of Shentian said:The problem is that additional rules rarely increase dynamism. They are more likely to slow it down.
On the other hand, dynamism derives from variation, from choice.
I've long been an advocate of the former, I prefer very quick and loose combats, and I think this is where far too often the "rules writer" butts heads with practical gameplay. Many times I've come up with elaborate combat systems in an attempt to simulate the varied aspects of a combat encounter, only to find that in a game I would ignore them as superfluous. As long as the players feel the freedom that multiple choices have meaning, they will engage a combat creatively. The more codified rules presented, I've found, the more there is a tedency to try and identify one "optimal" option and repeat and nauseum.
But the latter is an interesting point. I'd almost be tempted to offer that caveat that it's not simply choice, but "tactical choice", insofar as the tension of combat can be increased/replicated by varying elements of risk/reward. In other words, It seems like the kind of combat that you want to encourage is one that rewards players for taking risks.