Combating My Own Boredom as a Player

[Theory of Games]

Eh. Some people just aren't interested in that much engagement with what everyone else is doing. You don't have to like that, but its a reality.

Yeah, I don't game with players who aren't interested in engaging in group gameplay, so I wouldn't know or care.

While this is true, some systems make it much easier than others. For example, when I ran and AD&D campaign, combat was pretty brief because there's not a ton of opportunity to work together so the teamwork factor was low. Mostly "clear that space; fireball incoming" or "shoot the caster" sort of stuff. The fun of playing AD&D was more in the non-combat side.

Playing and running 3.0 / 3.5 had even less teamwork, as martials and casters were effectively playing separate systems. You caster is deciding whether time stop, a delayed meteor swarm and a summons or two would be better than polymorphing self + familiar into nine-headed hydras, and the fighter is deciding how much power attack to use. For me, it's the worst D&D version for feeling like you are part of a team. Combat took a while and was very much individual-oriented.

4E had some flaws, but it's hard to argue that it didn't hit a high point of tactical team play. Players would set conditions on opponents for team-mates to use; reposition enemies so the mage could burst attack a group (nothing an elemental caster liked more than a fighter with 'Come and Get It'); give them free moves to get to safer or more threatening conditions; mark enemies to make casters safer, create difficult terrain to make a better front-line defense. So many options for teaming up.

I still enjoy playing 4E (rarely) and PF2 (much more often) for this reason. Lots of combat options and fights are very different depending on who is on your team. The 5E I played feels much more akin to AD&D -- you do your thing when your turn comes around, then wait to see if you get hit. Repeat. For those styles of games combat does feel more boring, as the OP suggests.

I normally introduce players to combat tactics that will (1) benefit the party and (2) be more FUN. Unfortunately, many GMs aren't focused on player engagement, so yeah, they end up bored - even during combat.

Thread 'Worlds of Design: Combat Tactics'

Apr 14, 2023

In fantasy RPGs where cooperation is critical and death is a real threat, these tactics might save your character’s life.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

"Battles are won by slaughter and manoeuvre. The greater the general, the more he contributes in manoeuvre, the less he demands in slaughter." --Sir Winston Churchill (and many others have said much the same)

This advice is for games where there is a real chance that a character might die or be seriously injured. That’s true in some versions of RPGs, not in others. And I’m assuming that...

• lewpuls
• Replies: 15
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 

 

[Wolfpack48]

We had a 2-week break from PF2 to play Call of Cthulhu a couple months ago. I really enjoyed it.

Other systems that might be worth checking into are Pendragon and QuestWorlds. Combat seems be de-emphasized in both of those, and more on player decisions, interactions and so forth. Even Traveller might be a different look that pulls a bit out of total combat thinking.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I don't game with players who aren't interested in engaging in group gameplay, so I wouldn't know or care.

Your choice, but there's a lot of variation and matter of degree here, and those people still are often looking to game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you're interested in other games that have a relatively light combat emphasis (which is not the same as none), Eclipse Phase might be worth a look if you're interested in something in the SF/cyberpunk end.

 

[Golden Bee]

Instead of being the 10th person to tell you to try another system, although you should, I want to answer the original question.

I usually run about 60% of the time for our gaming group, which is the number I’m happy with. When I’m on the player side, I facilitate everyone else doing cool things. I go out of my way to ask other characters for their plans and opinions. I try to get them fate points by asking if the GM is invoking one of their troubles. And to keep myself entertained, I try and find the most efficient solutions to problems, which is rarely “let’s fight our way out”. (And if it is, the strategy is “how do we create an alpha strike so powerful that the enemy is dispirited or unable to continue?”) If there is a giant monster, hopefully there’s something nearby we can trap it with. If there’s a shadow monster, turn on the darn lights! Mobsters? Embarrass (or geek) the boss so the hoodlums flee.

I imagine in a four-hour game where I’m just playing, I might save 30 minutes to an hour of “conflict” time by playing at the top of my intelligence. Which often leads to me volunteering to run a Short drop in adventure because we have so much time! The ultimate GM play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Instead of being the 10th person to tell you to try another system, although you should, I want to answer the original question.

I usually run about 60% of the time for our gaming group, which is the number I’m happy with. When I’m on the player side, I facilitate everyone else doing cool things. I go out of my way to ask other characters for their plans and opinions. I try to get them fate points by asking if the GM is invoking one of their troubles. And to keep myself entertained, I try and find the most efficient solutions to problems, which is rarely “let’s fight our way out”. (And if it is, the strategy is “how do we create an alpha strike so powerful that the enemy is dispirited or unable to continue?”) If there is a giant monster, hopefully there’s something nearby we can trap it with. If there’s a shadow monster, turn on the darn lights! Mobsters? Embarrass (or geek) the boss so the hoodlums flee.

I imagine in a four-hour game where I’m just playing, I might save 30 minutes to an hour of “conflict” time by playing at the top of my intelligence. Which often leads to me volunteering to run a Short drop in adventure because we have so much time! The ultimate GM play.

This is a really good point, and one that facilitates the rectification of the "Spellcaster PCs get to do all the cool stuff while warrior PCs don't do anything" complaints we always hear people on about.

A lot of the people have this mindset that it's only the PC whose mechanics allow them to do something are the ones actually contributing... as opposed to what you mention here, which is that any and all players can contribute and put forth awesome ideas to the group and be just as important to the situation-- even if their character isn't actually the one who "rolls the dice".

This of course comes about by people who put too much stock in the game mechanics and not enough stock in their own imaginations and the creativity of the group. If the group can be creative on the whole... if every player can contribute ideas to what each and every other character can do... if every character sheet basically becomes "open" to every single player and everyone can throw out ideas or suggestions of what each character can do... then there is no "dead time" between turns.

Now of course we still need to work out standard operating procedures of not overwhelming each other or trying to force one's ideas all the time onto every player... but that's standard courtesy practices that we all should be doing anyway. So putting aside the possibility of being a dick about it... if the group happily works as a team to solve all issues, then in my opinion everyone stays compelled.

 

[TiQuinn]

The GM is very strict with the rules, and in Pathfinder 2, those are bad for improvisation, because there are rules for everything.
Theoretical example:
Say I want to climb onto a ledge to kick a flaming brazier on the surrounding cultists. That's one action to move to the ledge, one action to stow my shield and another to stow my sword. Then another action for every 5 ft I want to climb (assuming I make the check). Then another action to move to the brazier. An athletics check to push the brazier, and if I succeed, the cultists below are subject to a 15 ft cone attack. The save DC will be ridiculously low because the brazier is a low-level hazard.
So the cultists might end up taking 3-6 damage.
Do you know what's more effective? Just standing there fighting them with my sword.
Do I want to try to Bluff a group of guards before they hack us down? Can't do it because I don't have the feat that allows me to Deceive a group and the other feat to do it in less than a minute?

PF2, in its desire to make rules for everything, has limited the effectiveness and fun of improvisation.

But let's say that I could improvise effectively. I have high AC and hit points. I have reactive strike. I have high attack bonuses. If I leave where I'm supposed to be to go galavanting around the battlefield like Errol Flynn (with 20 ft movement), let's look what my selfishness has caused:
The rogue can't flank and get sneak attack.
I've moved myself out of the witch's healing range.
I've opened up the gunslinger to be charged by the enemies.

Not doing the optimized thing your class is designed to do violates the social contract. Paizo designed the game that you have no choice but to do it.

That’s a lot of checks for very little damage.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That’s a lot of checks for very little damage.

And people wonder why I have so much disdain for game mechanics in roleplaying games.

 

[TiQuinn]

And people wonder why I have so much disdain for game mechanics in roleplaying games.

Yeah, this used to be a problem back even in 2e days where we’d want to do something different/dramatic in a fight and our DM would make us jump through all these hoops, like tumble checks, climbing checks, and then give us the same damage as if we just made an attack. His reasoning was “well I don’t want you to do it all the time.”

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

I agree, I had this feeling a lot with crunchy systems. There just isn't enough variety. It gets worse if you're playing with folks who take a while to make up their mind. I played a VTT Lancer game once. I got about one turn in every hour. It took a minute or two to decide what I was going to do next round, then...waiting.

That's all on your table, and possibly the slowdown effects of VTT play. I've had the good fortune of playing Lancer with people who were really on the ball with engagement, system mastery and tactical coordination and we were averaging under two minutes a player turn. The GM was the slowest "player" at the table owing to the variety of NPC threats they were managing - and that speeded up as they started dropping, of course.

Crunchy games do tend to suffer more from indecisive, inexperienced or disinterested players than lighter ones, but with a good crew you shouldn't be seeing anything like one-hour rounds.