Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 8086122" data-attributes="member: 6880599">I think &quot;rules&quot; is a bit strong, their really more of guild lines really. The first guideline on the list is ingnore the rest when you need to. &quot;trying to fix boring combat with more rules to standardize combat to make it more interesting by the same formula Everytime.&quot; will work when they basic premise of the list don't do the same thing every single encounter every single game. Rule #2 is don't have all your units 5ft melee for every encounter recommending mixtures. The mixtures used are examples but I was able to list 14 with about one minute of thought. Your not going to convince anyone chess would more interesting if you only every used pawns. Even Checkers has two units because it gets kings. So why is it after I have been playing for 30 year and it has always been common to play campaigns that don't have but one or total units including bosses that are not 5ft melee enemies or for example fighting dragons fighting in 5ft melee range when they have 15ft reach and can fly? More evern slightly more varied combat make a huge difference which is why there have been war games (to include but not limited to chess) for over 1500 years and one thing they all have in common is some variation in troops. Why does D&amp;D bother with a monster manual when on page in the DMG could just say &quot;Monster 5ft melee&quot;.&nbsp; The answer is simple. Combat variation does and has always make combat more interesting. The &quot;Formula&quot; I made with these rules is only a list of suggestions a guildlines to consider to break up the formula your maybe using every day.Your past actions of players is motivator for players absolutely. But I didn't say players were engaged or bored. In fact I said its easy to engage players when ever the character they are invested in is threatened or a party member is threatened. That's natural since one of the 3 pillars of D&amp;D is character creation in which players invest and you as a GM using past actions of that character are also investing in. However, that does not mean story will not improve and character creation (which doesn't end when game starts but continues as the level and previous sessions become added backstory) when the third pillar of tatical combat is improved.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 8086122, member: 6880599"] I think "rules" is a bit strong, their really more of guild lines really. The first guideline on the list is ingnore the rest when you need to. "trying to fix boring combat with more rules to standardize combat to make it more interesting by the same formula Everytime." will work when they basic premise of the list [U]don't do the same thing every single encounter every single game[/U]. Rule #2 is don't have all your units 5ft melee for every encounter recommending mixtures. The mixtures used are examples but I was able to list 14 with about one minute of thought. Your not going to convince anyone chess would more interesting if you only every used pawns. Even Checkers has two units because it gets kings. So why is it after I have been playing for 30 year and it has always been common to play campaigns that don't have but one or total units including bosses that are not 5ft melee enemies or for example fighting dragons fighting in 5ft melee range when they have 15ft reach and can fly? More evern slightly more varied combat make a huge difference which is why there have been war games (to include but not limited to chess) for over 1500 years and one thing they all have in common is some variation in troops. Why does D&D bother with a monster manual when on page in the DMG could just say "Monster 5ft melee". The answer is simple. Combat variation does and has always make combat more interesting. The "Formula" I made with these rules is only a list of suggestions a guildlines to consider to break up the formula your maybe using every day. Your past actions of players is motivator for players absolutely. But I didn't say players were engaged or bored. In fact I said its easy to engage players when ever the character they are invested in is threatened or a party member is threatened. That's natural since one of the 3 pillars of D&D is character creation in which players invest and you as a GM using past actions of that character are also investing in. However, that does not mean story will not improve and character creation (which doesn't end when game starts but continues as the level and previous sessions become added backstory) when the third pillar of tatical combat is improved. [/QUOTE]

Verification