How the fuck do you make combat not suck? Specifically in systems

>>54412378
Get good.

Not even memeing. Write combat scenes on paper, read them out loud until you're blue in the face, realise everything you wrote is shit, repeat.

>>54412378
>Specifically in systems that don't focus solely on combat.
Then ask yourself what the system does focus on and use that to determine what details of the fight matter. If it's not a system in which combat is inherently important then you have to make it important by tying it to whatever is.

>>54412457
What's the end goal? Or were you too foolish to think of one?

>>54412582
>What's the end goal?
>How the fuck do you make combat not suck?
I'm gonna assume the goal is making combat not suck.

>>54412605
Okay, so it doesn't suck.

How?

>>54412378
Use terrains, and verticality. Makes wonder for every system.

Players will love jumping on an opponent

>>54412624
By being entertaining and enjoyable

>>54412378
Have you tried not being a fucking shit DM?

>>54412378
Focus on quick scuffles instead of big battles.
If a player punches some guy in the face in town, don't have the guy's buddies leap out of the shadows to assist him. That turns a quick scuffle into a big battle.
The same applies to beating up guardsmen desu. I always expect to hear the sounding of warhorns and the appearance of an endless horde if the players ever get into a conflict with the authorities, but you could also have it be the players beating up whichever two or three guards were giving them trouble and then walking away.

>>54412378
Why does that curved sword user think he has a chance against plate armor?

Look at things like the new Hitman game. It's filled to the brim with alternate paths, options and tactics. In my experience, players will generally forgo standard attack rolls if they can kick someone off a cliff or pull a lever to rearm a trap they maneuvered someone on.
I like combat encounters on vehicles or rooms with lots of interactable things. If you have a fight on a boat, one player could gain control of the ship to mitigate the negative effects of the storm the ship was heading into and things like that.
As a player it's pretty much the same. If you watch an action movie, protagonists tend to grab objects from around the room a lot, kick people into giant barrels of acid or fight to reach a dropped gun on the other side of the room. You as a player should look for things in your environment to use if you think combat is bland.

>>54412378
Either use a system where combat is the meat of the system and a fun game in its own right, like the universally-beloved 4th edition of D&D, or play a game that makes it a priority to resolve a fight as quickly as possible with minimal rolls because all you're interested in is wins, losses and injuries.

I don't have a good example of the latter. Most RPGs are fucking awful at this.

The only excuse for the standard I-roll-you-roll combat where you play out every six seconds as a tedious exchange where someone loses a handful of hp, is if the characters involved are in fact fantastically overpowered wizards who need to constantly reshape the battlefield creatively to get around each other's defenses.

Actually that solution is much the same as 4e's... RPG combat can be fun if and only if everyone has a lot of viable options for things to do round-to-round.

>>54412457
What the fuck is this? Do you prepare a script for the ways to narrate people getting hit with a sword? I pity your players.

>>54412378
Learn about how fights work. You could add binds, be more specific with your attacks and defences (thrust or slash? Solid block or deflect?). Take range and exposed bodyparts into account.
Your fight doesn't have to be two dudes standing squarely infront of each other. Your ruleset may be turnbased, but nothing is stopping you from making making each turn influence the next.
And you can use more varied attacks, like pummeling the opponent, or bashing your opponent with the blunt of your spears.
You could even do this in narrative only. Keep the combat mechanics you have, but GM it as a fluid set of events.
Your fights are only as interesting (or indeed boring) as you make them.

>>54412667
CURVED

SWORDS

>>54412457
More importantly, READ GOOD COMBAT SCENES. IMITATE. FIX.
Learn lessons from filmmakers, comic artists, novelists, etc. You're not the first person in history to have trouble with "How should I describe combat"
It's been done, better than you've done it. Steal from those people.

Systems that aren't crunchy in combat open up way more possibilities with the description of combat. Let minor combatants flee, or die outright and get replaced by similar threats, let players take over narration when it's appropriate (Sometimes with very good rolls, I let my players decide the course they want the combat to take, whether it's a gritty fight to the last or there's a decisive turn where they offer the opponent surrender, season to what's appropriate for their characters and their enemies.)

Parts of this depend on your group, but don't let it bog you down. Get creative. And if you have trouble with that, spend time finding inspiration for what the possibilities are.

>>54412769
>He doesn't know the difference between scriptwriting and improv practice

>>54412808
This too.

>>54412808
>Steal from those people.
Got any recommendations for who, anon? I've been having trouble making combat interesting and not just "He shoots, miss. He shoots, 4 damage..."

>>54412700
By extension the system should reward creative use of the environment. Improvised weapons are cool and all but if the optimal play is using my sword every round, I'll do that.

>>54412769
Not him, but I think he means that if you have practice in writing up good combat narration, then you will be able to improvise something at least halfway decent when the time comes at the table.

>>54412808
What if the problem is that the combat minigame is boring and no amount of inspired narration is going to change that? Because that's usually the problem.

>>54412982
The solution is very, very simple
>Stop running combat
or
>Use another system

>>54413005
I don't know about that. Sure we've been swinging and whiffing and rolling for damage for ten minutes here, but I think it'll become fun if I can just spice up the way I describe the same thing happening again and again..

>>54412644
yea, failing at it too. Which is why I've come to mine the depths of your immaculate knowledge.

>>54413005
but combat WILL happen with my players. They all prefer the more social aspect of roleplaying ,sure, but they still like the option to stab an asshole when necessary. And there's only so many times that guys friends don't want to fight before it gets stupid.

>>54413283
>Use another system
Solution's already there senpai. If you're using a system where it's literally impossible to make combat fun and your players insist on combat anyways, then it's time to switch systems. Or groups.

>>54413357
But if OP is as shit at running combat as he sais, would changing systems really help him much?

File: Wolfmen fighters.jpg (682KB, 1920x1055px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 1920x1055px

Every character in every combat gets to trip, disarm, throw sand in people's eyes, etc. You don't need feats or special powers for this, you just do it. The enemy gets to make a save to *avoid* it, there's no chance of failure to do this.

Make these debuffs strong and very real. Disarming your weapon means you have to switch to another one. Shattering your shield means you don't get its protection. Getting sand in your eyes means you have a random chance to hit an ally up close, or you have to give up a round to make an attack.

Give every character class/archetype useful AND fun things to do in combat. Rogues should fight like the sniper or spy from TF2, constantly fading into the background and picking off key targets. Fighters should be powerful up close, tanky, maybe even focused on tanking. Mages should have debuff and buff abilities that are better then or equal to their damage output.

Make monsters interesting. You can dissuade any monster from attacking by dumping your rations and running, but you lose rations. This monster only cares about protecting its nest, this monster hates the color red. Manipulating these behaviors allows you to trick or just avoid the monster.

Use morale and morale mechanics, and let players manipulate it. Enemies who run before the combat is over help make it much shorter and less boring. Fighters with multiple attacks per round or barbarians with rage shouldn't think it's unreasonable to do a warcry or something to intimidate enemies. Illusions of powerful creatures can also help scare enemies away.

Make weapons not boring. Nobody cares if a sword does slashing damage and a mace does blunt damage. That's fine, but there needs to be more to it. Maces dent armor and stun enemies when max damage is rolled. Swords deal bonus damage from bleeding. Axes can sever limbs of monsters with many limbs. Spears always hit first and so on.

Combat should reinforce the theme of the game. It should never be a chore.

>>54412378
combat becomes exciting when something is at stake. if the players like their characters and combat means they might be about to lose their characters, it will become much more interesting.

but if they sense that you're a limp-wristed candyman GM who is not willing to let chips fall where they may, then yeah... nothing is truly at stake and your combats are boring slogfests, no matter what flourish you put on in your descriptions.

>>54413388
Yes, if it has a good combat system.

What running combat well in a game with shitty combat means, in practice, is engaging with the system as little as possible and glossing over it with jokes and breezy narration.

Run a game with good combat and what you need to worry about is building interesting encounters, which isn't the easiest thing in the world but there's usually a structure in place so you at least know where to start.

>>54412667
Maybe he thinks he can tired him out or grapple him and get the tip in somewhere.
I don't think holding his shield back and to the side is going to help very much with that plan though.

>>54412378
Learn a martial art, demonstrate to your players when they don't understand.

>>54412378
A good combat has a story. This means a beginning, a middle, and an end - three act structure. Act 1 establishes the characters engaging in it, the setting it takes place in, and why it is taking place. Your overall story up to this point will take care of most of this. Act 2 is the interplay of the PCs and NPCs as they struggle to attain their goals. Make the combat take twists and turns and let the PCs do the same through their actions. Let new developments occur that complicate matters. Act 3 is the conclusion of the combat and the aftermath one way or another. Consider some of the possibilities in your GM prep so that you have ideas on where to take the game following the combat.

In addition to having a story give your combats emotional resonance. Make the PCs care and more importantly make the players care. Don't let combat be a mindless exercise. Make the players want it and make them role play their characters wanting it in order to attain a goal within the game.

So if you tell a story that your players care about the last thing you need to do is know your system. A fast game system can let more things happen within the story. A slow game system should either keep the story simple or else make things happen more quickly in an action economy sense.

So in summary, tell a story that your game system can tell and which your players will care about.

>>54412378
Exalted 3e

>>54413402
The unfortunate thing about this is that D&D has trained an entire generation of roleplayers to always default on the most boring, practical, and efficient means of dispatching foes and anything that isn't listed in the book or on your sheet isn't valid and/or too risky to attempt.

So even if you give players the ability to do this shit, they'll still default to "I hit him with my [weapon], I rolled a [result], does it hit? It does? I roll XdY for damage...I got [result]...is he dead yet?" because that's what it boils down to in D&D and if they wanted to play a character with actual options, they'd play a caster instead.

It blows, but that's the hurdle you have to overcome if you're playing with "veterans" and it's generally why I generally run games for either friends or newbies who have never played tabletop before.

>>54413402
Best advice I've seen. Combat should never (or only rarely) be a HP race where the first side to run out loses.

Most notably, have enemies surrender if they can't run and don't think they can fight. Suddenly a whole new approach opens up: how do we convince these guys we aren't worth the effort?

What this means is that undead enemies and mindless constructs gain a whole new dynamic. Goblins? Scare them with fire. Wolves? Drop a handful of jerky. Bandits? One-turn kill the biggest guy and watch the rest run. Orcs or undead... they won't stop coming after you as long as they have limbs left to hold a weapon.

>>54412378
In order for combat to not suck, you need to be able to maintain the flow of battle for as long as possible.

The issue I find with a lot of DM's nowadays is that they do unnecessary pauses in the middle of combat, whether it's to thumb through an entry in the PHB, reacting to OoC conversation that derails the campaign, or even getting too bogged down by the minutia without taking into account that the focus should be on what's happening during combat.

What I generally do is, if there's a weird sort of question that I'm not 100% sure on, I'll come up with a ruling while letting the player know that this will only apply until the end of the session, at which point I'll look at the rules and see if there's mention of it and if not, I'll keep the house rule for future sessions with mild tweaks should it prove to be imbalanced in some way.

It might not be perfect but it really gets players into the habit of thinking outside the box without unnecessarily focusing on rules.

>>54412642
And what do you find entertaining and enjoyable about combat in other systems?

>>54412378
You can't.
This is why highly abstract, rules light, narrativist systems will become the norm.

>>54412378
>>54416150
Its all about describing it nicely and trying to make your players join you in roleplaying the combat scenes.
You should try to make your players visualize the battle, as if you're describing it to a blind person.
Reading fantasy novels with good melee combat helps a lot in giving you ideas on how to describe your combat scenes, having a good vocabulary is important in combat or it will get boring really, really fast.
Try checking out the "recommended reading" pages - it exists for a very good reason, there's some really good shit in there.
Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and Dune are good starting points.

>>54418215
But none of that has anything to do with the system.

>>54418254
Exactly.
Having a good combat has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the DM's creativity and how he interacts with the players.
You guys worry too much about the system. You're treating TTRPGs as tabletop videogames, and not the cooperative storytelling that it is supposed to be.

>>54418311
But OP's question strongly implies they've noticed a difference between systems.
It's reasonable to conclude that thus he needs system specific advice and is a retard for not mentioning what exactly he's running.

>>54412752
Don't Rest Your Head resolves conflicts in a couple of opposed dice rolls. Combat in that system is quick and simple.

>>54412859
From Comics? Read Luther Strode with artist Tradd Moore, plus Master of Kung Fu and some of the GI-JOE runs.

Invincible, too, If you're into the good ol' ultraviolence.

File: Strike! The game of Tactical Combat and Heedless Adventure.pdf (1MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1x1px

>>54412752
>like the universally-beloved 4th edition of D&D

Haha, nicely memed anon-kun!

It hurts so much inside.

Unrelated, may I interest you in a bit of Strike! mayhaps?

>>54412378
Well for one, don't let combat last too long. Most enemies should go down in one hit. A lot of them should run or surrender when things go wrong on them. Combat should be fast and decisive, and that avoids a lot of the boredom of repetition.

>>54419061
Good fucking choices my man.
You have some serious taste.

>>54419738
Don't compliment my taste too fast, I also Unironically like ABBA, so take my recs with a grain of salt.

>>54419824
Well nobody's perfect.
If you shit all over everyone for a single choice they make and ignore everything else they do then you're basically just a judgemental asshole and I try awfully hard not to be that.
So I'm just gonna go with "good taste anon".

>>54419824
As long as it's not Mamma Mia, I think we are ok.

Does anyone else have to go through 6 captchas to post? It's fucking ridiculous.

>>54419853
Sure cool thanks.

>>54413896
Except if he pulls out a magical backflip or something, he's fucked in the pick, a killing / crippling blow is coming to him and he's in the worst position possible to deflect / block it

>>54419857
Just happened to me, so no it's not you.
Addendum: Just happened to me as I responded to you, just to prove the point.

>>54412667
Let's be real, it's not like every warrior goes into battle prepared to counter their opponent. Sometimes you have to make do.

File: General_of_the_Army_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_1947.jpg (38KB, 575x740px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 575x740px

>>54419910
"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy."

File: 1490713041854.jpg (67KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x500px

Learn to love the dice.

Dice are what make the games fun, and learning how to tap into the primitive joys of gambling are essential to making combat exciting.

>>54412752
>universally-beloved 4th edition of D&D
So that's why 4e's mechanics were abandoned in favor of a return to the way that 3.PF did things.

Don't try to rewrite history, please.

>>54422206
5e uses 4e's skill system, and uses 4e's essentials classes as base for the martials. 4e Slayer and 5e Battlemaster are as close as possible in their respective systems. It even has second wind and Action points (action surge).

Not to mention the whole hit-dice system.

What they did return to was the natural language and the (less and less faithful version of) vancian casting.

You are basically fooled into thinking it's 3.5 because powers are not in colorful boxes anymore.

>>54422257
So a handful of abilities possessed by a single class and a single archetype of that class is an indicator that 5e is 4e in everything but name? Not all martials are fighters and not all fighters are battlemasters.

>>54422257
I don't know if you are a troll or just stupid, but 5e is its own unique system that ironed out a lot of the failings of 4e by simply looking back to older editions. And, by older editions, I mean that 5e shares more in common in terms of base math and scale with AD&D than it does any later edition.

Generally, 4e was disliked for having clunkly, cumbersome, and slow battles, even after people started to add blanket math fixes in order to try and speed up the game.

>>54422295
I'm saying 4e is still in 5e. Mechanics weren't abandoned, they were renamed and tweaked to not trigger autism.

You think all the short/long rest recharges aren't just encounter/daily powers without the red/black boxes?

>>54422336
> And, by older editions, I mean that 5e shares more in common in terms of base math and scale with AD&D than it does any later edition.

And that's cool. It takes a little bit from everywhere, so everyone willing can see into it whatever he wants, whichever edition was his favorite. I like the lower numbers as well.

>even after people started to add blanket math fixes in order to try and speed up the game.
>people

You mean WotC with MM3 and on.

>>54422206
>Don't try to rewrite history, please.

Alright, but you have to work on detecting sarcasm. Deal?

>>54422379

>You think all the short/long rest recharges aren't just encounter/daily powers without the red/black boxes?

Considering they made them take 1 hour, short rests are not really something you can do every encounter. Hit dice are also what people accused healing surges of being rather than what they actually were.

>>54422336
>And, by older editions, I mean that 5e shares more in common in terms of base math and scale with AD&D than it does any later edition.

It's kinda funny, I've seen the same argument made for 4e having more in common with AD&D than 3.5 did.

>>54412859
Robert E. Howard's Conan series has good combat descriptions.

>>54412859
Everything the Darkest Dungeon narrator says. They aren't descriptions as such, but they are great mood setters.

>>54412378

Hey, tg, how can we make this thing I don't like so I like it?

Happy summer, folks.

File: oh-wait-youre-serious-let-me-laugh-even-harder.jpg (40KB, 479x356px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 479x356px

>>54417708
see >>54413429

>>54412457
>>54412808
>>54412827
>>54412885
>>54414174
>>54414785
>>54418215
>>54422967
>fancy narration
still as hollow as putting on a spiderman skin in a first person shooter and pretending your playing a superhero game. it's just window dressing.

>>54412632
>>54412881
>individual circumstances and tactics
work only if the players care to begin with

>>54412778
>>54413402
>muh tripping and pushing
see tactics

>>54412652
>>54415127
>>54418878
>>54419697
>speed
doesnt make combat more interesting, just shortens any boredom

>>54412644
>banter
haha

>>54412508
>stakes
correct

>>54422626
If you mean by scale of numbers?

AD&D's main characteristic is that its numbers start low and stay low. 4e never gets anywhere near the full scale of 3.5, but it also never really starts at the same low level.

Low level 3.5 and AD&D share much more in common than AD&D and just about any tier of 4e.

>>54423431
The size of the numbers is an illusion.

4e characters start with higher numbers, sure; but so do their enemies.

Plus, if you really want classic D&D "rusty dagger shanktown" experience, level 0 rules do exist.

>>54419646
Stop shilling Strike!

Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?

>>54423216
>doesnt make combat more interesting, just shortens any boredom
Wouldn't that technically make combat more interesting though? I mean, boredom is caused when there's nothing happening for long stretches of time.

>>54423523
The basic thing to understand is that in 2e and 3.5, low level enemies and PCs have rather swingy results, where a few bad rolls can dramatically change the outcome of the battle.

In 4e, they decided to keep things more "safe". Higher HP, and more consistent damage rather than explosive damage, which generally favors PCs more than enemies since consistency is more important to those who have to endure more battles.

Which lead to it being considered a dull game with tedious combat.

It was later improved by altering the combat math dramatically, but it still lacks much of the visceral excitement of previous editions. Sadly, 5e also occasionally falls into the realm of trying to play it safe and consistent, but it's nowhere near as bad as 4e had it, and people have already begun to push 5e to have more explosive rounds by utilizing Unearthed Arcana and generally just building and playing smarter.

>>54423892
>The basic thing to understand is that in 2e and 3.5, low level enemies and PCs have rather swingy results, where a few bad rolls can dramatically change the outcome of the battle.

This is what I mean by "rusty dagger shanktown". This is only a thing at low levels in any edition, and 4e can do it with the level 0 rules (or just always using higher level, striking focused monsters).

>It was later improved by altering the combat math dramatically

They slightly nerfed monster health/defense, and made the mandatory expertise feats something extra on the side. It was a change of around +1/-1 per tier plus an extra 2 or so at best.

> Sadly, 5e also occasionally falls into the realm of trying to play it safe and consistent, but it's nowhere near as bad as 4e had it

5e has the same/similar inflated HP values, but doesn't have the tactical combat options, or design of 4e to make the ~3-4 turns of combat actually exciting. It also has actual limitless healing, both in and out of combat, missing the entire point of healing surges. I had combats where the barbarian stood up 3-4 times thanks to just spamming 1st level holy words, and this was at what, level 3-4?

>>54423892
But 5e is even more boring than 2/3/4e ever was. It's almost painful to endure combat.

File: screen_shot_2015-06-17_at_10.22.09.png (546KB, 583x497px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 583x497px

>>54412378
Be creative and colorful with descriptions. Make the death of a npc brutal AF. Add banter to the mix occasionally from the npcs.

It's seriously not hard to make a combat flow and be fun just try to be creative in any way

>>54424039
>They slightly nerfed monster health/defense

You mean they cut HP by about half, and other similarly dramatic changes.

>5e has the same/similar inflated HP values, but doesn't have the tactical combat options,

That's actually verifiably false. The first part is pretty easy to simply check, and you can see that 5e battles are mechanically designed to end far faster. Secondly, one neat thing that 5e did was introduce simple abilities with multiple uses, allowing an exponential growth of potential combat options and foregoing the heavy restrictions of 4e's powers system. 5e uses a much more organic and intuitive system that rewards players for learning its ins-and-outs, while still being largely accessible to new players in a way that allows them to think outside the box, rather than literally inside the boxes as 4e was designed.

Take for example the rogue's cunning action. It's only a few lines of text, but opens up hundreds of potential strategies.

>>54424591
>You mean they cut HP by about half
This is wrong. I don't know why people keep parroting it. the most drastic change was dropping hp by 1/3 for some monsters, but most only changed by a couple points. What changed was monster damage went up, defenses went slightly down, monsters got better designed attacks/reactions/special defenses, and PCs had several years of feats/powers/supplements to draw from. The game overall just got fuller; it was the build up of an evolving game, not a few drastic changes.

>>54424552
why?

>>54412378
You make it not suck by playing Song of Swords.

>>54424591
>Secondly, one neat thing that 5e did was introduce simple abilities with multiple uses
This has led to redundancy. Advantage/disadvantage being the result of almost every special action ends up weeding out the less efficient ways to achieve the same result, and bonus action overlap restricts one's action choices at any given moment, again weeding out less efficient uses of the action. It's difficult to come up with varied strategies in 5e because everything just tends to blend together because there isn't much differentiating your choices.

>>54424552
5e is the odd game where brand new players often grasp how the system works faster than people who've played previous editions. It might have been just that you had to rethink your approach to how combat works in 5e to make it work for you, because if you try to play it like 4e or 3.5, you're going to encounter some difficulties in keeping the game dynamic.

I'd actually recommend playing 5e with brand new players a few times, because they are often able to think creatively with the system in ways that can be rather inspiring.

>>54424762
That's not odd at all, that happens pretty much every time anyone is introduced to a new system that ears some resemblance to something he already knows. It's why people with a video game background pick up 4E so quickly.

>>54424758
You're missing the point of 5E, buddy. 5E is all about the environment options. If your combats consist of characters using only character options and monsters using only monster options, you're DMing wrong.

>>54424758
>Advantage/disadvantage being the result

There's a lot of abilities that either depend on advantage/disadvantage or otherwise make use of it, and this provides a measure of diversity especially when there's often other benefits/restrictions at play. You're right in that it leads to redundancy, but that redundancy does help players keep focused on the broader picture, without having to worry about things like eking out every possible potential point of advantage while organizing your attack routine or carefully layering a sequence of thirteen or more buffs for maximum efficiency. Some people still try to do that, but 5e has a number of "walls" put in place to keep things from getting out of hand like they did in 4e and 3.5.

While 5e is considerably simpler than 4e and 3.5 in regards to combat, that simplicity actually can work to enable both the players and the GM to act and react more intuitively. It's a bit of a process to get into this mindset, kind of like switching from using a grid to instead keeping track of things mentally, but I've found that 5e did a fair job at cutting out the less interesting and more finnicky parts of combat and instead allows players to focus on finessing the broad strokes.

>>54424816
>You're missing the point of 5E, buddy. 5E is all about the environment options.
This dumb meme again.

>>54424914
>implement mechanic that makes ruling environmental advantage/disadvantage incredibly fast and easy
>free interactions in each combat round, very unrestricted movement

How is it a meme? I agree they could have emphasized it more explicitly but the design-intent is clear.

>>54423216
>It's just window dresssing

You do realize that table top rpgs are primarily fueled by narrative description right? If you can't be entertained by a good description of events in the game then maybe you should just go play video games

>>54424732
Well, life as a martial is largely boring. You have few tactical options available and hard limits on what you can creatively spit out, ironically due to the feats and class features covering fairly mundane options, so what happens is you're barred from an action because "well you didn't pick that feat/feature so it wouldn't be fair"

Then there's how short combat is. Due to the limited action economy there's little you can do a turn, but you can set up things. Problem is they take so long to set up the fight is over by the time you're ready to pull off whatever crazy shit you were trying to build up to.

Spellcasting has the same issues it's always had in ever non4e edition. It continuosly baffles me how they make restrictions and solvable problems in the game design, then make a spell that circumvents the whole issue. Short rests take an hour? Well I guess we need to figure out how to set up safe camps-oh wait the wizard just casts rope trick.

>>54424762
Most groups I'm in are mostly new players. It's agony playing with these people. It seems like they have difficulty grasping the concept of an rpg altogether. They're largely baffled by action economy and try to do way more than is legally allowed, or they don't quite get rules interactions so they try to do things that are outright impossible or have no advantage, like say doing two things that grant advantage and expecting an added bonus. That's to say nothing of their difficulty with basic calculations and record keeping; figuring out modifiers or attack rolls/saves seems to be a continuous issue with them, they often forget the skills system exists altogether, and god help you if you ask them what spells they know. These people just seem dumb

Playing with newbies is the least fun experience in 5e I've had. At least with veterans I can have some inkling of fun when someone tries to concoct some crazy scheme out of a bizarre spell interaction or a "creative" reading of an ability's rules

>>54424914
Admittedly, it's a little hard for people used to older editions to get used to, especially when the DM just assumes to run the game like they might have in the past without actually reading the DM's guide.

But, go ahead and read the DM's guide. It might help you move past this whole "call it a meme" business.

>>54424959
A reliance on GM fiat does not make for a good combat system.

>>54424996
>I can't run combat in this system like it all happens in a featureless white void, that means it is shit!

>>54424959
The only intent they had in design was to make the game as bland and inoffensive as possible. Anything else is an unintentional byproduct.

>>54425030
Here's a tip for life, kiddo: If you present actual arguments, you wouldn't be viewed as a total retard anytime you try to argue a point.

>>54425017
There are systems where I can run combat like it all happens in a featureless white void and still have them be exciting. I can then add environmental shit to make it even better if I feel the need to.

Yes, it does mean your system is shit if it has to rely on GM fiat for players to derive any enjoyment from it.

>>54424969
You come off as a person who only understands games in the context of a min-maxing munchkin, which puts you at odds with the more modern approach that games have come to embrace.

It's also unsurprising you have difficulty teaching new players, because you generally have to understand something if you want to try teaching it.

>>54425083
> I can then add environmental shit to make it even better
That's what I doubt.

>>54425153
Literally irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

File: IMG_2926.jpg (34KB, 400x418px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 400x418px

>>54425083
Name three systems where it's possible to do that. If you name them and provide explanations, I'll be convinced.

>>54425162
Not at all. The more mechanically heavy you make your combat, the less it relies on your narrative, but in return you lose flexibility to handle unusual situations and speed of resolution.

>>54425180
Please don't tell him. I don't want ignorant D&D faggots to invade decent communities.

>>54425285
I had a feeling that you were just here trolling. I wish you'd just wear a trip already so people aren't tricked into arguing with you.

>>54423216
so this... this is pure unadulterated autism

>>54425303
Think what you like, just don't go where I go and stick to your shit game.

>>54425093
5e does not have a modern approach. It is still a very crunchy, gamist system and is nothing like the more narrative driven games you see nowadays. The issue with 5e is that it doesn't have good crunch, but it sprinkles in narrativist elements without giving them a strong mechanical backbone in the game. What you end up with is this weird frankenstein where you don't have the freedom to come up with creative action resolutions because the mechanics require too much specificity, but those same mechanics don't have the variety and strong design that would allow you any satisfaction from mastering and utilizing them.

5e tries to make every kind of gamer happy, but still leans too much on it's gamist history while simultaneously failing to draw strongly from any of the the previous editions' good ideas. So you just end up with this incredibly bland game that's "good enough" but not excellent by gamist standards, but still too distant from other styles of ttrpgs to enable a satisfyingly narrativist mode of play.

>>54425180
DnD 4E, Runequest, GURPS

File: 4eCombat.jpg (107KB, 889x444px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 889x444px

>>54425180
4e

File: 44894803980985.jpg (38KB, 341x268px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 341x268px

>>54425319
OK, so we have some names. Good start. Now why those systems in particular?

>>54423216
>replying to everybody in the thread

>>54425319
>Runequest
Isn't that WFRP tier Attack-Parry-Repeat shit?

>>54425317
>my opinions

That's nice. Too bad most people disagree with your interpretations, leaving you kind of on an island of senseless and empty cynicism.

And yes, this is me openly dismissing you, because I didn't realize what kind of person I was discussing things with until now.

>>54425343
Because they have combat that's engaging even in a vacuum. Are you expecting someone to recant the entire rulebook to you? Are you retarded? Read it yourself if you want to know.

>>54425319
4E, you have multiple tactical options in combat regardless of the environment that combat takes place in
Rune quest, weapon range, parrying, special effects that you can apply in combat, basically you have enough viable options that combat is more complex than just hitting your opponent
GURPS, hit locations, the sheer amount of character options, and once again a combat system more complex than just hitting the target makes combat interesting

>>54425436
Why do you bother with D&D drones?

>>54425361
>their combat is engaging in a vacuum because it's engaging in a vacuum
>just read the books, I don't have to explain anything beyond that
The first is circular reasoning. >>54425436 gets it better.

>>54425347
Not really, if someone botches a parry or attack roll, thier opponent has a bunch of special effects that they can apply which means you can't just go back and forth forever

>>54425460
How is saying a few vague things bothering with anyone?

The fact that he included GURPS and Runequest of all systems just helps illustrate his lack of experience, and his rather poor attempt to justify his choices are downright laughable.

At this point, it's just catching a guy in a lie, and watching him fidget and squirm.

>>54425343
Well 4e solves the issue by creating environments out of zones and effects. Most player types can create some kind of temporary or lasting zone from their power selections. The wizard obviously can create all manner of magical zones, classes like sorcerer or rogue can exploit enemy groupings, the fighter is a zone all his own by being able to punish creature that get too close to him and do things he doesn't like. Several of the defenders have different ways of creating these zones too: Wardens literally create areas of supernatural frost/earth etc, swordmages tag guys and play a transdimensional game of hide and seek, etc.

On the monster side there are several special effects that provide certain arrangements of monsters added bonuses, like getting extra attacks/defenses etc within the aure of a lead monster. Minions also contribute significantly to battlefield complexity, allowing the dm to drop in extra units with all the features they bring, without overwhelming players with hard to kill foes. You could basically treat minions as hazardous terrain if applied properly.

They really should've kept the minion idea in 5e.

>>54425512
What's wrong with GURPS and Runequest? Not a fan of simulationist games? Also to be clear are you defending 3.pf and 5E or just annoyed with his suggestions?

>>54425436
And none of them have good environmental interaction. Just using character mechanics is just better 99% of the time, or it results in ultimately pointless +1s that nobody gives a fuck about anymore. In either case, ruling the interaction in all off these systems is annoying because due to tight action economies and interaction rules you either have to look shit up or make it up outright invalidating the hassle of having such an extensive system.

File: OK_thumb.jpg (30KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x600px

>>54425360
sure

>>54412378
Stop using enemies as automatons. No one ever just "swing the sword" because it is a good way to die. Any fighter who survives his first combat learns that he needs to cheat, bluff and mess with the enemy. If the combat devolves into "I swing - You swing" people who have an option to retreat will. Because no one wants to die for nothing.

Better set an ambush down the road and shoot the enemy with crossbows.

>>54425537
>creating environments out of zones and effects
You missed the point of the discussion. Read again.

>They really should've kept the minion idea in 5e.
No. It's garage and so is everyone who likes it.

Why does nobody talk about Song of Swords in these types of threads?

>>54425578
It's perfectly in line with the discussion. 4e can happen in a featureless void and be fun, because it fills the void with features with abilities alone. None of it is reliant on GM fiat.

>>54425588
Because the retard who make these threads don't actually want to play an RPG with detailed, decision-laden combat, they want to shill 4E while shitting on 5E/3.5
It's the same sort of mouthbreather that thinks having colored cards with different cooldowns makes ffor "deep" combat.

To illustrate my point:
>>54425319
names the most generic crunchy systems of all.

>>54425588
Nobody plays anything that isn't D&D

>>54425555
The guy a few posts back in the chain asked for combat that's engaging in the void, also Runequest has rules for traps and environmental effects so I don't see how you consider it bad for terrain based combat

>>54425555
>And none of them have good environmental interaction
Like fucking 5e?
For real, where is the good environmental interaction in 5e, or the rules about it? There is NOTHING. You just make shit up

>>54425347
Note that WFRP originally only allowed limited active defences, and then only to dedicated warriors. Then they went and fucked it up.

BRP and RQ can suffer from the attack/parry-pingpong.
MRQII introduced some good ideas to avoid that and RQ6 perfected it. Combat is damn good, if on the crunchy side.

Keep the game at a brisk pace in combat. Expect your players to plan their moves in the turn before them. They should know their own modifiers, what to roll, casters should have the specifics of their spells known, etc. If players have to wait 45 minutes for their turn, expect everyone to get bored.

Make varied and interesting combat encounters. Combat maps should have cover, obstacles, hazards. Fighting 5 bandits in a plain alleyway is much less interesting than fighting 5 bandits as both of your boats tumble down ice-cold rapids, crashing into each other and into rocks.

Tailor encounters to your PCs abilities. Have you got a blaster sorcerer that loves to blow shit up? Throw him a bone and let him blast groups of enemies at a choke point. Do you have a sneaky sniper elf? Give him a tower to climb so her can get a shot off on the summoner on the other side of the wall. Create encounters that allow players to play to their strengths. Don't be the dickhead GM who throws nothing but undead and constructs at a sneak-attacking rogue.

Raise the stakes, present dilemmas in combat, and use time constraints. For example, the players have three turns to charge through pirates and reach the villain before his ship is unleashed from the dock and he escapes with the mayor's daughter. They are forced to charge through enemies and put themselves into a dangerous position to save the damsel in distress. Now instead of them waiting for the bad guys to attack them one at a time from a relatively safe position, one or more of them is surrounded by enemies. Put players in situations where they must take risks and dive into danger.

>>54425631
I like song of swords but what's wrong with the other games?

>>54425625
To add to this, in 4e positioning matters a lot, and characters themselves are (sort of) features. Even without the Essentials protector auras, defenders control the space around them rather well, for example, and then there's the multitude of repositioning powers available to just about everyone.

In 5e, less so. This does make it more comfortable to fudge using ToM, but removes one of the more enjoyable aspects of combat while doing so, without replacing it with anything.

>>54425541
"Simulationist" is a cute euphemism here, because the issue with both games is that they are quick to grow tedious thanks to the layers of niggling details, and their mechanics tend to fall apart when put under any significant stress (such as trying to use exotic creatures), especially since the hit locations in both games are particularly bad examples of how to try to add decision-making in combat. I'm actually having a hard time deciding which game does them worse, but I'm probably going to have to give it to GURPS because while Runequest had worse tables earlier, they refined the tables considerably in later editions. They still bog down combat and really only reward players who have game mastery rather than tactical understanding.

>>54425661
No, anyone could parry in WFRP. It's dodging that was limited.

>>54423216
>fancy narration
Listen, if people could get engaged if the first Final Fantasy where it was just pressing a button then maybe they SHOULD get engaged when it's just you telling them their options.
1)Maybe you're just boring then
2)Have you considered that narration is just extra "roleplaying" as in "ROLEPLAYING GAME"?

>work only if the players care to begin with
I... what? Are you seriously making this point?
If your players don't care enough to get involved and you don't care enough to make an effort and describe shit then just lie down and wait to die.

>muh tripping and pushing
Again, if people can get invested in barebones mechanic that means that any description is just added draw.

>doesnt make combat more interesting, just shortens any boredom
Except that doesn't quite work that way: boredom often comes when something drags on for too long, for exemple WHEN THE FUCKING BATTLE TAKES FOREVER YOU RETARD

>banter
>haha
He's kinda right you know? If you ain't gonna invest some effort, you're pretty bad.

>stakes
Yes and no. You can make the stakes high as you want, it won't make 2 hours of coin-flipping exciting to me. Have your players interact with you in ways the system hasn't thought of, giving them options is what you want.

FFS dude, I don't want to be like this (read as autistic as you) but you gotta put some effort if you're gonna interest your players.

>>54425588
Song of Swords is good, but it's massively focused on 1v1 PvP style stuff, from last time I checked, and is also pretty crunchy.

Which is okay, since the fights tend to be short and brutal I guess.

It adds an entirely different set of game skills (reads), which isn't bad but may not be what people are often looking for.

>>54425704
Not in 1e. Or yes, everyone could parry, but at the expense of attacking.

>>54425689
The amount of crunch with GURPS and Runequest, specifically 6E never bothered me, that being said it usually only takes me a single read through to understand the mechanics

>>54425625
>4e can happen in a featureless void and be fun
If you replaced 4E with a good system, I'd agree with that statement.

>None of it is reliant on GM fiat.
Literally your whole fucking game is reliant on GM fiat. How do you not get this?

>>54425646
>Runequest has rules for traps and environmental effects so I don't see how you consider it bad for terrain based combat
Because these are both very specific and clumsy.

>>54425653
>You just make shit up
Nope, you're just too dense to understand how important an open-ended, fast, robust interaction ruling is for a game that encourages people to use narrative elements in combat and complain that it isn't diablo in tabletop form.

>>54425681
4e is just overall bad. Powers lock you into specific actions far too rigidly, and the powers themselves are uninspired and, worse, arely different between classes.
Runequest is great for the magic and how it integrates into the relatively gritty yet high-magic world, great example for narrative inspiring mechanics. On its own, mechanics are kinda clumsy though due to lots and lots numerical modifiers which leads to slogging combat.
GURPS is the exact opposite off Runequest, where its modularity prevents having informed core-mechanics. You still have lots of modifiers and no interface for more open actions, so like 4E you're locked into actions too much again. As opposed to 4E, GURPS actually has interesting mechanics backing its power system, I'd recommend it to anyone looking for crunchy combat with less narration.

>>54425800
>4e is just overall bad. Powers lock you into specific actions far too rigidly, and the powers themselves are uninspired and, worse, arely different between classes.

Back up your claim. Build a wizard that plays like a fighter. It should be easy, right, since all their powers are so similar.

>not manfighting your party every time they enter combat
get out of my face

>>54425687
>without replacing it with anything.
It replaces it with a more narrative drive.
In 2 4E campaigns stretching for over a year together I have yet to have a single combat that felt like an actual conflict between people and not like a game of chess or something.

>>54425867
Narrative is mostly on the GM at least when comparing 4 to 5E

>>54425901
This. It's entirely reasonable that maybe 5e fits your DM's style more, though. If he doesn't want to worry about tactics, there's a good chance it's taking up a bunch of head space that could go to the narrative.

>>54425837
>like a fighter
>like a wizard

Under what definitions? Because, by 4e, none of the classes feel like fighters or wizards.

We've got defenders and controllers, and the joke here is that there's plenty of "this guy is an arcane striker" and "this guy is a martial striker", and regardless of how they tried to differentiate them, they still end up feeling largely indistinct thanks to the 4 roles being the foundation the system was built on, and it's a particularly dull one that seems distilled from MMORPGs rather than tabletop roots.

>>54425937
>Because, by 4e, none of the classes feel like fighters or wizards.
No, no, dude, the meme goes like "in 4e all classes feel like wizards."

This thread is terrible. I wish sagebombing still existed.

>>54425937

>Under what definitions? Because, by 4e, none of the classes feel like fighters or wizards.


Under 4e's. They may not _feel_ like wizards/fighters (whatever that means) but they are mechanically distinct enough that you can't replace one with the other.

In my opinion. But you seem to know 4e really well, so you can probably do it.

Well?

>>54425987
It does. I don't know where the meme that it doesn't comes from.

>>54426000
I don't think that's the same guy from earlier

>>54425837
Why would I, if you're that adamant in defending 4E in the year of our lord 2017, you're suffering from so much cognitive bias an army of Therapists wouldn't be able to change you.

I'll just enjoy better systems and leave you to wallow in your hate for the fact that the majority of RPG-playing customers join me in recognizing 4E as the shitheap it is.

>>54425921
>>54425901
>If he doesn't want to worry about tactics
He doesn't want to worry about narratively explaining arbitrary abilities that don't make in-universe-sense half of the time. 4E is in that weird place where it's just gamist and neither very narrative or simulationist.
5E sits square in the middle, which is why so many people like it. The triangle is a crutch for people who can't design.

>>54426046
5E while definitely more narrativist than 4E really isn't that narrativist

>>54426000
Can you clarify what you are asking? Are you asking on whether you can build a wizard defender or a fighter controller, because asking to make a wizard feel like a fighter or a fighter feel like a wizard is a nonsensical question in 4e, because those are largely meaningless terms as far as that game is concerned.

>>54426108
He's asking you if fighters and wizards are mechanically distinct enough that they are different in 4e

>>54426093
>isn't that narrativist
exactly, but neither is it that gamist or that simulationist.

>>54412378
Give the combat meaning. Every single piece of combat in game of thrones feels weighty because it happens for a reason, and because you care about the people involved.

When that fails just make it really cool sounding, be gory with the details and get your players involved, e.g., "how do you kill him?"

>>54426046
>He doesn't want to worry about narratively explaining arbitrary abilities

The narrative comes first. That's where the abilities come from.

You think the Succubus has Charm powers because they needed a high level controller outsider or what?

>>54426108
A Fighter in 4e is a Big Guy who wears heavy armor, uses heavy weapons/shield, stands in the way of his enemies and ruins they fucking day if they try to ignore him (and also if they don't, only slightly slower, Fighters are badass like that).

A wizard is a rather squishy, ranged spellcaster, who mostly eschews armor, using implements to rain fire and curses from afar, as well as utility effects like creating walls, freezing the ground, and summoning demons.

So I want you to build a wizard that is a Big Guy who wears heavy armor, uses heavy weapons/shield, stands in the way of his enemies and ruins they fucking day if they try to ignore him (and also if they don't, only slightly slower, Fighters are badass like that) OR a Fighter that is a rather squishy, ranged spellcaster, who mostly eschews armor, using implements to rain fire and curses from afar, as well as utility effects like creating walls, freezing the ground, and summoning demons.

>>54426128
I would say it leans harder on its gamist aspects, that and the reason why it isn't that hard into one of the three styles isn't because it has a balance but because it's a fairly empty system

>>54426181
>A Fighter in 4e is a Big Guy who wears heavy armor, uses heavy weapons/shield
Tempest and arena fighter would like a word

>>54426181
Most of what you described is largely superficial or otherwise built around 4e's ideas of the four roles.

What's stopping a wizard from using magical armor and shields and standing in the way of his enemies, aside from the concept that he is a controller and not a defender?
What's stopping the Fighter from being squishy and attacking from a range, aside from him being slotted as a defender?

Strip the classes of the superficial business, and all we've got is you asking if a defender can be played as a controller, and vice versa. Neither feel like you're playing a wizard or a fighter, since you're just playing 4e and rotating through your powers and fufilling the role designed for you to sit in, so the question remains largely nonsensical to ask if a wizard can be made to be like a fighter, because in 4e, a wizard can't even be made to be like a wizard.

Two namefags in the same thread? Using GoT and D&D4 to make points?
Oh, this is going somewhere.

>>54426270
Okay, you keep moving the goal posts, but that's fine, I'm okay with jogging a bit.

How about building a fighter as a swordmage then? They are both defenders, so this should be easy.

>>54426270
What defines a non 4e wizard?

>>54426324
Being able to solve everything on his own.

>>54426320
If you want to step back a bit, away from me illustrating why your question is largely pointless, we can just go ahead and ask what people's reactions were to the classes.

You can tell me how different a fighter and wizard are in 4e. You don't even have to, because the book did its best to present them as being different classes with distinct roles and distinct feels to them, and we all went into the game thinking the classes would really feel unique.

But, they largely failed, because all the classes just end up rotating through a series of powers that are just variations of "I deal damage", with other abilities that just ended up raising questions of when or how do you deal damage. With most battles generally just being a question of which at-will power to use before dropping some encounter powers, the nuances of the classes started to fall away.

You can argue about the distinctions, demand that people recognize them and appreciate them like a French man sampling different wines without realizing they all came from the same bottle, but the general consensus was that the classes all felt rather similar and that was one of the many marks against the system.

Of course, that's just the general consensus, and connoisseurs like myself are able to distinguish the subtleties between a controller and defender, but beyond that you're asking far too much from people unless they're as deeply embroiled in the game as you seem to be.

>>54426523
>If you want to step back a bit

I don't. I want you to show me what fighter power enables him to mark/punish like an aegis, and rain elemental spells and sword boomerangs over his enemies.

>we can just go ahead and ask what people's reactions were to the classes.

I couldn't give less of a fuck that most people can't see past what color the power boxes are. It's their loss. I want _you_ to back up your claim.

Or keep dancing, I guess. It's entertaining.

>>54412859
The Mongolia daily series was initially developed mainly because The major author was unhappy with his own ability to describe combat

>>54426593
Calm down, I agree with you, getting mad doesn't help though

>>54426642
Mongoliad. #%#^** auto correct

>>54426523
>But, they largely failed, because all the classes just end up rotating through a series of powers that are just variations of "I deal damage", with other abilities that just ended up raising questions of when or how do you deal damage.

...wait, what? The Wizard has a shit tonne of powers that do either NO damage or token damage at most.

That's basically the entire thing behind the Illusion spells. Hypnotism is an at-will that deals zero damage itself.

>>54426523

>But, they largely failed, because all the classes just end up rotating through a series of powers that are just variations of "I deal damage"

5e characters have less non-damage options than 4e ones. I mean, in 4e a rogue could apply status effects out the ass.