Facing: Cool or Lame?

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Stormonu]

For RPGs, no, I'd rather never see facing again.

For boardgames like space hulk or wargames, they're fine.

 

[The Shaman]

I checked yes-or-no, but really that's yes more often than no.

I like the tactical element of facing in combat; for example, I would send a henchman or man-at-arms to attack an armored foe's shield side while my character would attack on the non-shield side - if the opponent turned to present my character with his shield, the henchman or man-at-arms gained a bonus to attack the foe's flank.

Turning may be easy, but effectively defending yourself in all directions isn't.

 

[Skallgrim]

I think facing is unrealistic in any system where rounds > 1 second. Turning around doesn't take that long.

Totally agreed. However, in my ideal system, which is insanely detailed and all mechanical aspects are instantly calculated by esoteric calculating machines, all rounds are 1 second long, and (unlike GURPS) don't take much more than that to resolve, either.

In a non-ideal system, I think that facing works with a very short turn structure (like one second) IF combat is sufficiently lethal that most fights don't last more than 10-15 seconds (actual fights, not battles). If you have facing, short combat rounds, and dozens (or hundreds) of them, it's really not fun anymore.

 

[Stormonu]

I checked yes-or-no, but really that's yes more often than no.

I like the tactical element of facing in combat; for example, I would send a henchman or man-at-arms to attack an armored foe's shield side while my character would attack on the non-shield side - if the opponent turned to present my character with his shield, the henchman or man-at-arms gained a bonus to attack the foe's flank.

Turning may be easy, but effectively defending yourself in all directions isn't.

For me, the flanking rules cover this sufficiently, without having to bother with actual facing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Man, I don't even like movement squares or opportunity actions in combat.

Facing would make me die a little bit.

 

[steenan]

I strongly prefer systems with no map and an abstract positioning system. Thus, definitely no facing as in "mark the direction your miniature is faced in", but I'd gladly accept combat modifiers that concern in-game facing (eg. suprise attack or successful feint in combat that lets me attack someone in the back, putting him at disadvantage).

 

[Umbran]

While there may be exceptions, I can largely do without facing in an RPG. For the most part, it is a level of detail that I may like in a wargame, but I find doesn't add to the RPG experience.

 

[Wombat]

In my ideal rpg, all combat would be very freeform, no requiring miniatures and their "false gods' eyes perspective" of the battlefield. No board, no minis, just general combat. Having participated in mock battles with varieties of troop sizes, weapons, etc., and having spoken with combat veterans about their personal experiences, I find the "accuracy" of battleboards very disturbing and unrealistic.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Ideally, yes. If it's done well, it adds to the 'combat minigame'. No, not minis game, before someone inevitably assumes that.

Executed poorly however, I'd rather it be kept out of the games we play.