Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 6342309" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Actually, your question was &quot;[h=2]How do I make combat fun with minimal complexity?&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;[/h] If you encourage your players to roleplay - talk about the cool stuff they're doing in combat - it won't increase complexity unless someone starts second-guessing the GM adjudications.This adds some chaotic flow to combat.&nbsp; For a more orderly, but still simple, way to do this, allow each player to choose his number on the d4.&nbsp; Cover your d4 with your hand until your opponent reveals his choice - and find out which combatant chose the better maneuver.I actually think I solved this in my RPG.&nbsp; A few factors contribute to the erosion of turn-based hacking:- You can attack whenever you want.&nbsp; Any character can take an action during the current turn.&nbsp; However, if you want to defend, you'd better make that your action choice.- There are two positions in combat: offensive and defensive posture.&nbsp; And you can attack from either.&nbsp; Your position determines whether you do full damage, half damage, or no damage.&nbsp; So something as simple as making a movement can reduce your attacker's damage to half, and require him to use an action moving instead of attacking if he wants to do full damage.- Defending is useful.&nbsp; It doesn't just delay your inevitable death; as long as you're defending in offensive posture, your comrades in defensive posture are harder to hurt.That said, have you never seen a boxing match?&nbsp; It's pretty much &quot;black shorts attacks, white shorts attacks, black shorts attacks, white shorts...&quot;Rule zero does.&nbsp; Although it's not really a design feature.&nbsp; D&amp;D took out the benefits of footwork by eliminating &quot;facing,&quot; then they put it back in by introducing &quot;flanking.&quot;&nbsp; So I'm sure it's possible to make combat interesting with simple rules, but it would be easier just to introduce complex rules that make combat interesting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 6342309, member: 6685730"] Actually, your question was "[SIZE=3] [/SIZE][h=2][SIZE=3]How do I make combat fun with minimal complexity? "[/SIZE][/h] If you encourage your players to roleplay - talk about the cool stuff they're doing in combat - it won't increase complexity unless someone starts second-guessing the GM adjudications. This adds some chaotic flow to combat. For a more orderly, but still simple, way to do this, allow each player to choose his number on the d4. Cover your d4 with your hand until your opponent reveals his choice - and find out which combatant chose the better maneuver. I actually think I solved this in my RPG. A few factors contribute to the erosion of turn-based hacking: - You can attack whenever you want. Any character can take an action during the current turn. However, if you want to defend, you'd better make [B]that[/B] your action choice. - There are two positions in combat: offensive and defensive posture. And you can attack from either. Your position determines whether you do full damage, half damage, or no damage. So something as simple as making a movement can reduce your attacker's damage to half, and require him to use an action moving instead of attacking if he wants to do full damage. - Defending is useful. It doesn't just delay your inevitable death; as long as you're defending in offensive posture, your comrades in defensive posture are harder to hurt. That said, have you never seen a boxing match? It's pretty much "black shorts attacks, white shorts attacks, black shorts attacks, white shorts..." Rule zero does. Although it's not really a design feature. D&D took out the benefits of footwork by eliminating "facing," then they put it back in by introducing "flanking." So I'm sure it's possible to make combat interesting with simple rules, but it would be easier just to introduce complex rules that make combat interesting. [/QUOTE]

Verification