How do you like your combat?

[STARP_JVP]

I like it plucked, hung, stuffed with sage, oven roasted, then served with potatoes and button mushrooms.

Oh, COMBAT, sorry. I thought you asked me how I liked my WOMBAT. I'm terribly sorry...

 

[Skrit]

Fast is always good, one reason why I loved Alternity..

I prefer guns to swords any day in my games. D&D when you first start out players are really cautious since they have only 4 to 16hps. Once they get high level it gets boring unless the monsters can cause massive damage to the PCs.

I like Delta Green, Alternity, and Spycraft for another reason over D&D. Players tend not to care about low level monsters, or people unless there are a lot of them. In alternity (and the like) anyone with a gun is dangerous even to a level 20 character.. Conan is a good example of how a fantasy game can be lethal...

Gritty is where I stand, anyone can die at anytime it keeps the players on their toes..

 

[Berandor]

I want my combat to be fast-paced, cinematic, brutal. I don't use minis (except in extraordinary circumstances) because it slows combat even more and makes it a tactical nightmare as each player mentally counts seven different ways to move behind the enemy. Most combats, the PCs are undermatched, and I play that up, but when it comes down, it really comes down. I don't like to pull punches and try to play the opponents to the best of their ability. Stupid opponents (and mindless ones) act very differently from intelligent ones.

What I especially look out for is that not everybody likes to fight to the death, so opponents flee, give up, or play dead

 

[Thanee]

Fast is good, to get a better feel for the action.
Believable is good, opponents should act according to their knowledge and ability.
Tactical is good, critical decisions should influence the outcome of a battle.
Difficult is good, easy is boring, also this makes the players focus more on the scene.
Unpredictable is good (sometimes), surprise makes things more spicey.
Mapped is good (for bigger combats), so everyone is on the same level as to what is going on.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

When DMing DnD, my preferance is for cinematic, flashy and entertaining combat. I like stuff to play like an action movie - stunts, magical FX, hacking through mook hordes, big tough 'bosses'. I love it when things feel dangerous but a single unlucky dice roll isn't really going to kill a PC. Normally have a high level of gore. Try to include snappy dialogue - with varied success.

Amazingly enough, I'm quite a fan of lethal/gritty gaming, I just don't have fun doing it with DnD - IMO too many changes need making before it will feel right to me. Prefer many other systems - mostly Call of Cthulu, Cyberpunk or Deadlands.


I like variety: Interesting terrain features and setups are good. My all time favorite was in Shadowrun: PCs on a packed commercial jet, freefalling to give near zero-g, no weapons. Morrus does some really good ones of these - giant magical clocktower was superb, throne room with sliding negative energy walls, sacrificial temple with 'feisty' blood channels cut into the floor, fighting on a narrow bridge - over an acid lake - in an antimagic field .

 

[tetsujin28]

Do you prefer a grittier, gorier fight with lots of death?

Yes

How about a realistic combat from a historical standpoint?

Yes.

Or a free-for-all kind where the DM and players can do pretty much everything?

Yes.

What about some kind of S&M-inspired combat with lots of humiliation D)?

That just sounds...stupid.

Do you like to use miniatures during combat

Gaming without miniatures is not gaming.

 

[Morte]

This mostly refers to GMing -- the game style I get as a player is largely pot luck, my likes and dislikes are fruitless.

I mostly play traveller.

I like combat to happen about once per session, sometimes more, sometimes less.

I like it to scare the bejazus out of players, who go out of their way to avoid it.

I like it to have hours of build up, actual combat that lasts about ten minutes at the game table, and real ramifications (the decision to fight affects the story).

I like combat to be heavily tactical and favour people who play smart. People who use surprise, cover, stealth and dirty tricks should get a big advantage. Ditto those who go to the trouble of obtaining/smuggling illegal weapons, or do the groundwork to get licenses for them.

I like the rules to be just simple enough that the players will learn and use them to the full. This means different rules for different players -- with some people I'd take pleasure in using GURPS advanced combat, with others I'd stick to "rules lite" because they're just going to ignore the options in anything more detailed.

 

[Gold Roger]

I differ between combats that count and those that don't.
Combats that count are tough cinematic fights. The PC's are outnumbered the opponents are cleverly led. The possibility that the PC's get their asses handed exists, especially if they fight stupid. These fights have value for being the fights they are. They are direct confrontations with important villains, big pirate attacks and assassination attempts, the conlusion points of plots, etc.
Combats that don't count are more pushovers against inferior foes. They have value in the campaign for other reasons. They can be used to show the PC's how powerfull they have become, to create a certain atmosphere (in the city of Darkcastle, there are bandits and cutthroats behind every corner), as minor plot devices etc.
I prefer to play with miniatures, I think they can help imagining a scene and certainly help with handling movement.

 

[Darkness]

Do you like epic battles between good and evil,

Sometimes.

where the party almost always has the advantage and can do cool moves?

Yes.

Do you prefer a grittier, gorier fight with lots of death?

Kind of.

How about a realistic combat from a historical standpoint?

Depends on campaign - e.g., in D&D, only under appropriate circumstances; in a GURPS Napoleon campaign, probably yes.

Or a free-for-all kind where the DM and players can do pretty much everything? What about some kind of S&M-inspired combat with lots of humiliation D)? Or a standard D&D-combat, as in the documentaries? How about a super realistic approach with fatal injuries?

Hm. Probably not.

Do you enjoy using lots of rules as support or do you see the rulesbooks as a menace to your creative mind?

The former.

Do you like to use miniatures during combat ... ?

No. Give me some paper and I'm good to go.

 

[FireLance]

I like:

• epic battles between good and evil
• where the party has the advantage if they think well, plan well, or use good tactics
• where the party can do cool moves
• where the party's opponent can do cool moves
• using lots of rules as support
• with miniatures