Making Combat More Exciting

[Bill]

Ran the first in my demo series last night. It's been a long time since I played with the megaversal combat rules and the melee rounds really seemed repetitious. What can I do to spice things up?

[Killer Cyborg]

Sriracha?

[Bill]

Sriracha?

So...I should squirt it in the players' eyes?

[dragonfett]

Sriracha?

So...I should squirt it in the players' eyes?

LOL! Well, that would make things a tad bit more interesting, now wouldn't it?

I would say highly encourage them to use cover and give out extra XP for describing their actions (i.e., instead of declaring to dodge and rolling for it, have them describe "I leap out of the way!" and stuff like that). And don't give them XP for using the same description over and over again, no more the two to three times per battle/scene unless some unusual circumstance dictates more. And it doesn't even have to be a lot of XP either, maybe like 10 XP per action described, or less if the description has been used before/not very good or in character. This the about the only thing I can think of at the moment.

[Killer Cyborg]

Sriracha?

So...I should squirt it in the players' eyes?

That'd do it.

Except..... Then I'd want to eat their eyes.

[Killer Cyborg]

Seriously, I think the main question would be, "how is it boring as things are?"

[glitterboy2098]

Sriracha?

So...I should squirt it in the players' eyes?

LOL! Well, that would make things a tad bit more interesting, now wouldn't it?

I would say highly encourage them to use cover and give out extra XP for describing their actions (i.e., instead of declaring to dodge and rolling for it, have them describe "I leap out of the way!" and stuff like that). And don't give them XP for using the same description over and over again, no more the two to three times per battle/scene unless some unusual circumstance dictates more. And it doesn't even have to be a lot of XP either, maybe like 10 XP per action described, or less if the description has been used before/not very good or in character. This the about the only thing I can think of at the moment.

bingo. combine this with running the NPC's and opponents as at least semi-intellegent (IE: use teamwork, cover, and credible tactics if 'human'..or fight in a way that plays up their abilities if a 'monster'..)

make the players start thinking about how the fight should look if it was a movie.

[Juce734]

I do like that idea of 10xp per description of a unique action.

In my game I've also given xp for crazy or daring type of things based on a thread I saw once talking about Hollywood moments. So maybe the combination of the two would add a lot to your combat and games in general.

The Hollywood moments led to a player hitting a backflip onto the trunk of a car and holding on as it drove down the road until it got t-boned. So far the best "scene" I've had with my current gaming group.

[glitterboy2098]

In my game I've also given xp for crazy or daring type of things based on a thread I saw once talking about Hollywood moments. So maybe the combination of the two would add a lot to your combat and games in general.

The Hollywood moments led to a player hitting a backflip onto the trunk of a car and holding on as it drove down the road until it got t-boned. So far the best "scene" I've had with my current gaming group.

if your group like this kind of over-the-top approach, certainly. personally, i'd prefer players do such kinds of things less often, but that can be moderated by using reason to apply the appropriate penalties or effects as needed. usually such actions would at least warreant XP for being in character (if it is), and possible clever plan XP..

[Juce734]

In my game I've also given xp for crazy or daring type of things based on a thread I saw once talking about Hollywood moments. So maybe the combination of the two would add a lot to your combat and games in general.

The Hollywood moments led to a player hitting a backflip onto the trunk of a car and holding on as it drove down the road until it got t-boned. So far the best "scene" I've had with my current gaming group.

if your group like this kind of over-the-top approach, certainly. personally, i'd prefer players do such kinds of things less often, but that can be moderated by using reason to apply the appropriate penalties or effects as needed. usually such actions would at least warreant XP for being in character (if it is), and possible clever plan XP..

Yeah I like to have a laid back group that will do things once in awhile for fun. If they just went crazy and over the top constantly trying to do backflips constantly and stuff for no real reason I would do the opposite and dock points probably. I think there should be a good balance.

[Noon]

Ran the first in my demo series last night. It's been a long time since I played with the megaversal combat rules and the melee rounds really seemed repetitious. What can I do to spice things up?

Was it taking a long time to whittle down the monster?

[Bill]

Essentially yes. I think I need to take that as my cue to change tactics, which will hopefully keep the players thinking.

[Noon]

I think maybe add some chance for a player attack to insta kill an enemy. Like on a nat twenty, roll percentile dice and if it's under X percentage (say 10%), the bad guy instantly dies. OH, and every normal hit the players make increases that percentage chance by one. So they'll always feel they are on the verge of instantly winning.

[Cinos]

I think maybe add some chance for a player attack to insta kill an enemy. Like on a nat twenty, roll percentile dice and if it's under X percentage (say 10%), the bad guy instantly dies. OH, and every normal hit the players make increases that percentage chance by one. So they'll always feel they are on the verge of instantly winning.

So rather then having them think of things to win, you'd rather just roll some dice to randomly see if they luck out and add more book keeping to combat? Heck I'd just focus fire and never do anything else if that rule was there, to inflate that chance for instant death. That actually sounds hugely anti-climatic to just go "Oh I guess I win without thought or effort."

[Noon]

I think maybe add some chance for a player attack to insta kill an enemy. Like on a nat twenty, roll percentile dice and if it's under X percentage (say 10%), the bad guy instantly dies. OH, and every normal hit the players make increases that percentage chance by one. So they'll always feel they are on the verge of instantly winning.

So rather then having them think of things to win, you'd rather just roll some dice to randomly see if they luck out and add more book keeping to combat? Heck I'd just focus fire and never do anything else if that rule was there, to inflate that chance for instant death.

I don't know why you think my idea precludes 'thinking of thing to win'? What were you thinking of adding that can't be added on top?

BTW, every group I've played with uses focus fire already?

That actually sounds hugely anti-climatic to just go "Oh I guess I win without thought or effort."

BTW, your lotto numbers just came up.

Guess your pretty bored with that though, massive anti climax...I'll just go shred the ticket...

I suspect I'll get the classic "Actually it's all in the book" answer, but you've looked at the rifts rules - it's largely an exercise in luck? And here's the point where you'll say you do a bunch of stuff that makes it far vaster than that...as if that stuff you do is in the book. But I'll be skeptical it is. Just in advance, whatever you do, whether it's in the book or not, good for you for doing it.

[Cinos]

BTW, your lotto numbers just came up.

Guess your pretty bored with that though, massive anti climax...I'll just go shred the ticket.

I don't really play the lotto, poker is my gamble of choice (The irony is that I've won far more in lottos and lose rather often in poker). There's a reason I'm sure you can infer from that given my previous statement. It's not that I don't take the money, it's that it's largely unexciting because I'm just a spectator in the process. While Poker you're active, you make mistakes and learn about things (probability and your opponents), and can actively alter the course of the events.

And here's the point where I'll say you like to assume a lot about people and make yourself look like a jerk on the internet. I'll go ahead and make one of the two assumptions that either; you avoid the rule change threads (or rather, avoided reading them), or you skipped my wall sized posts on them. I think the rules are a smoking pile of rubble and sparking gears that couldn't get off the ground and I'd often take 'no rule' RPG's over it (Those of you who want to rush in to defend Palladium for whatever reason, feel free to PM me about it rather then further derail the thread).

I was however showing you that your suggestion would result in a hugely anti-climatic fight the players will have a harder time adding personal investments because the simpler way can just result in instantly winning. What's more you'll either make the players feel cheated, or have the player and the NPC's playing by different rules.

To try to keep the thread back on its rails, timed turns, depending on the group, can add a high degree of difficulty, but it's more a good tool against distract-able groups (This is because groups that have trouble thinking on their feet will default to "I shoot if they feel rushed), I've seen it work with some groups. Adding EXP for doing more then "I shoot, rolled a 12, 13 Damage" can help encourage more creative tactics (Along with formalized bonuses for things like cross fires, suppressive fires, and things like that, so players can knowingly use things like flanking maneuvers), and making cover and smoke realistically useable without making them overpowering good also help add tactical elements that can force players to think creatively.

Lowering MDC values of armor is another common way to do this, forcing evasion while under fire (The most successful version of this was coupled with a change to dodge that allowed the dodger to take a marginal penalty to dodge, and return fire with a wild shot with most small arms, to try and turn the tables).

[Noon]

I'll say you like to assume a lot about people and make yourself look like a jerk on the internet.

So you act like you know enough about me to say I'm a jerk when I act like I know enough about you to make an assumption?

So your saying there are (atleast) two jerks here? Fair enough, if you can take it on the chin, so can I.

I was however showing you that your suggestion would result in a hugely anti-climatic fight

You weren't showing how it would result in that, your just saying it will result in that.

Maybe your group wouldn't dig it - but don't put the OP off trying something that may very well work for his group. You don't know it wont work for his group (nor do I know it will, but that's experimentation for you, instead of pre deciding something isn't going to work without an experiment at all).

[jedi078]

bingo. combine this with running the NPC's and opponents as at least semi-intellegent (IE: use teamwork, cover, and credible tactics if 'human'..or fight in a way that plays up their abilities if a 'monster'..)

To add to this rarely (if ever) have the PC's face off against mooks. Have the enemies be scaled up to their respective level. Make so that in every combat sequence their exists the possibility for PC's to be killed.

[Noon]

Make so that in every combat sequence their exists the possibility for PC's to be killed.

If there's a real chance of a PC dying in combat, let's say a 5% chance each time, that means a PC dies roughly every 20 fights. It's kind of inevitable.

If a relatively arbitrary death on a consistant timeframe works for you in gameplay, no prob.

Otherwise the whole 'Make a real chance of dying' is actually a problematic exercise.

[jedi078]

Make so that in every combat sequence their exists the possibility for PC's to be killed.

If there's a real chance of a PC dying in combat, let's say a 5% chance each time, that means a PC dies roughly every 20 fights. It's kind of inevitable.

If a relatively arbitrary death on a consistant timeframe works for you in gameplay, no prob.

Otherwise the whole 'Make a real chance of dying' is actually a problematic exercise.

As weird as it seems a fair number of my players like the 'fear of death' present in my games.

[Noon]

As weird as it seems a fair number of my players like the 'fear of death' present in my games.

If a relatively arbitrary death on a consistant timeframe works for you in gameplay, no prob.

I did mean no problem. It's only a problem when people say they want the fear of death, but they lie.

No, I've actually seen an account of this (I'll chase down the thread if needed) where a GM said his player wanted the fear of death. I said to him to try this out - give the player two counters, one indicates death, one indicates cannot die. The GM has these as well and he secretly chooses one before an event like combat or such, deciding how lethal the events of the game world would be. Then after the GM's choice is secretly locked in, he asks the player to choose a token. The PC can only die if both player and GM choose the death token. If both tokens indicate death then the PC is dead.

The player who said he wanted to fear death, went and hid his death counter so, and I quote "So I don't accidentally put it on the table!".

Sometimes people lie about what they want. They just want an illusion of death.

But if this situation isn't the case (hopefully not), then as Alf would say, no problem.

[Spinachcat]

I hack most NPC MDC by 50%, often 66% for hordes / minions / unimportant foes. The only guys who get 100% are the named foes of importance. Everyone else is there to get splattered.

I also like the idea of camera time for characters. On your initiative, you can spend as many actions as you want, keeping whatever you want in reserve for defense. Players really enjoy it because it gives them the spotlight to launch flurries of attacks, massive hails of gunfire and all sorts of action movie stuff. BUT if they get to crazy, then they are in danger of not having defensive actions to protect themselves.

The big problem with RPG combat is when you let the numbers do the talking. Encourage all your players to describe their actions and YOU must be very descriptive with the NPC actions. Get the banter going and put the mechanical system stuff in the background.

[Hendrik]

Hey there,

hmm, I think that the megaversial combat system is extremely conduitive to an exciting combat of any form, so I apologize if some of the "tips" in the following are of a more general nature but maybe for the first one:

Telling the tale: I think the art of making combat exciting is in the telling, i.e. to put a mental picture to the numbers. A nice way of doing things is to resolve the rolls quickly, and then as GM take it upon you to (re-)tell the tale of that particular round at round's end. Alternatively, as has already been said, it is important methinks as well to give the numbers meaning at any turn. So, if you do not make an exciting "round summary", make the descriptons juicy while the round rages.

Don't stick to rules as if they were cast in iron. Even a great rule may suck, err, not fit in certain situations, be prepared to change it. I would not be complex about it, and for the love of god don't kill a good rule just because it does not fit in one situation, but as a GM you can always amend things on a case to case basis by giving some modifier, you know quickly say "o, you're right, this IS different ... hmmmm, ok, +2 on your strike in this case".

Round resolution in combat: Other than that I, too, count down (or up, if you want) the attacks: First all 1st attacks/actions, then all 2nd, 3rd, and so forth. If someone wants to do something in combat that is not a combat action, e.g. pick a lock, I - as I assume all - look at how much time that would "realistically" need and then make a call on how many rounds / actions that translates to. Simiarily when a combat action is not in a book but takes up "action time", such as trying to pry a sword from a body, I also make a like call on how many actions that translates to.

When there is a rules question or discussion I always answer and then usually make a call after a minimum of discussion. I find that nothing must hold up the game, and if I am not sure, I make a binding call "without prejudice", i.e. the call will stand and I will not go back on it, but I reserve the right for the future after further deliberation (with or without the players) to give a fuller ruling for such cases. I am not an autocrat as a GM (on the contrary) but I find that that system has always worked extremely well. Contrary, at tables were the GM "allows" endless discussions it (a) costs valuable game time and (b) the result is as a rule not any better.

I have also found that it is necessary to find any rules lawyers in your group as quickly as possible and assert your benevolent authority or kick them out because if a player does not recognize the GM's authority to make rule calls the game simply does not work IMO especially in critical situations. In my humble experience, rules lawyers (meaning self-serving optimizers) usually do not work towards "the best of the law", i.e. a fair and equitable aka good rule, but only towards their own end, which is their right, but such conduct has to be held in check because by broadening their "rights" and sitting on the game by "pleading" they encroach on the fun and game time of everybody else.

Endless planning is my last issue. Planning is good. Players need to plan, for e.g. a raid, equiping an army, etc. etc. but - unless such logistics ARE the game - it is easy to get lost in it. I think the GM needs to help the players by giving reasonable time limits, for example (a) "decide this until our game next Friday" or (b) "you have 1 hour now" setting an egg-timer then "and then you are better ready" grinning evily.

Cheers
Hendrik