A Thought on Repetitive Combat

[Alzrius]

Stalker0 brings up a good point. In most sagas where the hero has a special (or signature) ability, we see that ability be used over and over. If anything changes, it's either the context (e.g. firing an arrow right in the guy's face instead of from 500 yards away), or they simply gain another, different power.

The problem with Stalker0's examples is that they're illustrating a point that's a truism, but for another genre. Superheroes, as a general rule, don't operate on the step-progression that D&D characters do. When is the last time Superman or Spider-Man gained new powers (permanently, that is)? They might get better at using their existing ones, but that's not nearly the same thing. Inu-Yasha follows an example that's mostly similar; he has only a small number of new powers that he gains/unveils over a relatively long time...closer to how a D&D character works, but still more superheroish.

D&D characters go through a charted course of power-ups and progression. A 1st-level PC's player knows (even if the character doesn't) that he's just started to tap into what his PC can do. At higher levels, this manifests as a desire to try new things to illustrate that the character has gone beyond the limits imposed on him before. Spellcasters pull out new and more powerful spells. Combatants have new and more powerful magic items. Having to stick to an older attack form overly much is an indicator that your character hasn't progressed.

Ultimately, this is a good example of a difference between fantasy heroes and superheroes.

 

[DonTadow]

Stalker0 brings up a good point. In most sagas where the hero has a special (or signature) ability, we see that ability be used over and over. If anything changes, it's either the context (e.g. firing an arrow right in the guy's face instead of from 500 yards away), or they simply gain another, different power.

The problem with Stalker0's examples is that they're illustrating a point that's a truism, but for another genre. Superheroes, as a general rule, don't operate on the step-progression that D&D characters do. When is the last time Superman or Spider-Man gained new powers (permanently, that is)? They might get better at using their existing ones, but that's not nearly the same thing. Inu-Yasha follows an example that's mostly similar; he has only a small number of new powers that he gains/unveils over a relatively long time...closer to how a D&D character works, but still more superheroish.

D&D characters go through a charted course of power-ups and progression. A 1st-level PC's player knows (even if the character doesn't) that he's just started to tap into what his PC can do. At higher levels, this manifests as a desire to try new things to illustrate that the character has gone beyond the limits imposed on him before. Spellcasters pull out new and more powerful spells. Combatants have new and more powerful magic items. Having to stick to an older attack form overly much is an indicator that your character hasn't progressed.

Ultimately, this is a good example of a difference between fantasy heroes and superheroes.

There's a PDF out there at rpgnow that incorporates a "signature move" for your PC. I use this variant and also, if the book is useless, allow my players to come up with their own signature moves.

 

[Glyfair]

Superheroes, as a general rule, don't operate on the step-progression that D&D characters do.

It depends on the time frame, though. Originally, Superman was just superstrong and everything came from that (could jump over buildings, very tough skin that bullets would bounce off). Through a time period he gained powers, heat vision, x-ray vision, flight, super hearing, etc.

You can see the same thing with Batman. Over the early years he gained a sidekick, utility belt, batmobile, etc.

At some point, though, the characters became iconic. Any changes after that became temporary, because people expected a certain core character. Very, very few changes were long lasting.

So, it's not just the genre, but the expectation. In the 40's-50's, superheroes were expected to progress. In the 60's, superheroes were expected to do weird things ("See Superman with Beppo the Super Monkey, Comet the Superhorse, Streaky the Supercat"). Expectations often evolve over time, sometimes with certain things (Firestorm can evolve, Superman can't).

I think the early period supeheroes have a lot more in common with D&D. Yes, they had their shticks. However, having the heroes defeat the villians the same way quickly became boring. If Superman defeated supervillian A with heat vision, then the next time he meets him the villian has to have found away around heat vision. Superman has to find something else to work - Hmmmm...how about superbreath?

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

To avoid repetitive combat -

1. Make it short, fast, and brutal. Give six seconds to declare, but as long as they like to describe. Allow standoffs. Don't allow long battles. Most fighting is quick and brutal; after a few passes, there's some recovery (Or Witty Repartee) time.

2. Description. Avoid "Your sword does X damage." At all costs. Regardless of setting, make it evocative, but not flowery. We don't need glorified entrails - we need the strike of blade on blade.

3. Avoid most Anime conventions. This is a different genre, and Anime 'damage' is a bit all over the place. If you must have the yellow fever, try watching Seven Samurai or Yojimbo.

Try reading some Robert e. Howard's Conan stuff. Or watch the movie.

Anime sucks with combat. It's essentially repetitive, for the good reasons mentioned previously. Now, there are good ones - Cowboy Bebop for instance. Why does the combat not suck? Its not repetitive in nature. And its fast. And while it happens almost every episode, it has a reason. But avoid modelling your game like bad anime. The game is based on descriptive writing, which is based in realistic combat. And most anime is far from realistic.

Oh, don't forget terrain.

4) Combat must have a vital reason, because it should be DEADLY. While PC's are combat heavy types, combat kills. Don't make monsters/NPC's/whatever easy. Make it extremely hard, but doable. (This doesn't just mean use powerful bad guys. It means using smarts.)


So. Make your combat deadly, fast, and with evocative description. Thats how I make my combats interesting.


And stay away from the bad anime.

 

[The Shaman]

3. Avoid most Anime conventions. This is a different genre, and Anime 'damage' is a bit all over the place. If you must have the yellow fever, try watching Seven Samurai or Yojimbo.

Try reading some Robert e. Howard's Conan stuff. Or watch the movie.

Anime sucks with combat. It's essentially repetitive, for the good reasons mentioned previously. Now, there are good ones - Cowboy Bebop for instance. Why does the combat not suck? Its not repetitive in nature. And its fast. And while it happens almost every episode, it has a reason. But avoid modelling your game like bad anime. The game is based on descriptive writing, which is based in realistic combat. And most anime is far from realistic.

Quoted just 'cause...of Legacy.

 

[hexgrid]

2. Description. Avoid "Your sword does X damage." At all costs. Regardless of setting, make it evocative, but not flowery. We don't need glorified entrails - we need the strike of blade on blade.

I find coming up with a billion different ways to say what, in the end, still just means "your sword does X damage" to be tedious in itself (and you're still going to have to say "your sword does X damage," anyway.) I think evocative descriptions work best when used to highlight the most dramatic moments.

3. Avoid most Anime conventions. This is a different genre, and Anime 'damage' is a bit all over the place. If you must have the yellow fever, try watching Seven Samurai or Yojimbo.

You might as well say "Avoid most film conventions," or "Avoid most literary conventions." Why single out anime? Every media has conventions that don't translate well to rpgs.

This is a different genre, and Anime 'damage' is a bit all over the place. If you must have the yellow fever, try watching Seven Samurai or Yojimbo.

Huh? I'd say D&D is much better equipped to model, say, InuYasha than it is Seven Samurai.

 

[mmadsen]

D&D doesn't have a lot of "figure-out-the-weakness" to it. Damage is everything's weakness.

Well said. (Or, rather, all the interesting decisions are magical.)

 

[Savage Wombat]

There's a PDF out there at rpgnow that incorporates a "signature move" for your PC. I use this variant and also, if the book is useless, allow my players to come up with their own signature moves.

BUENA BULLDOZER OF TRUTH!!!!!

 

[reveal]

There's a PDF out there at rpgnow that incorporates a "signature move" for your PC. I use this variant and also, if the book is useless, allow my players to come up with their own signature moves.

What's the name of the PDF? I tried doing a search and couldn't find it.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

It's true. During fights people play to their strengths.

To keep things different, the opponents need to mix things up as well, jump the archer, counterspell the mage, hide and start with sneak attacks, run away into caves. If they start doing different things, the players will as well.

And repetitive combat isn't always a problem. It depends on if the actions declared are the fun part. Maybe a group is up about "DUDE! I just critted for over 90 points of damage!" Or maybe the group enjoys banter, so they hit someone for x damage, then taunt them. Or maybe the fighting is just a seguay into an RP session that the group will enjoy.

Repetition isn't bad.

I rarely say X damage, but at times I will degenerate into "Ok, you swack him and he's all dieing, but not all the way."

My current (tempoary) character is thus far much less repetitive than my old one, simply because of the number of options at my disposal. Though I susupect it'll degenerate into 'sneak into combat and open with a sneak attack', 'hop from foe to foe looking for a flanking situation', 'disarm any annoying opponents if no sneak attacks are available', 'go full defensive if noticed', 'cover the archer if he's hurt', and 'give cover fire if targets are available'. Which, though it'll be similar at times, is still a pretty wide repatoare.

On a funny note, our DM gives a bouns to hit if we shout the name of a move as we're doing it. So, after using 3 'named moves' during the combat (first session with this character). One of the other players was laughing and said "You're just making those up!"

And there's nothing quite like loving your abilities and playing them up.