How do you like your combat?

[diaglo]

i like keeping my options open. i like variety

 

[MonsterMash]

I prefer it to be fairly quick without too much square counting, with an emphasis on action.

 

[Schmoe]

Sorted this out in my game by installing a shot clock. If you can't state your action in 40 seconds, you get to sit out the round. Considering each player gets 40 seconds plus the time it takes me to do the bad guy's attacks, that's MORE than enough time.

Surprisingly, it worked and I now run combats extremely quickly. In todays game, with five PC's and a fiendish rat swarm, combat took less than 6 minutes. I was very impressed.

When I DM, I've instituted something similar. I give people a "reasonable" amount of time, depending on the complexity of the situation, but usually no more than a minute or so. If the player still hasn't decided, I have the character Delay and move on to the next in initiative order. The character will Delay indefinitely until the player has made up his or her mind and decided to jump in. This keeps things moving without unduly penalizing the player with an entire missed turn. I haven't received any negative feedback on it, and my players are definitely the kind to let me know if they don't like something.

 

[Psion]

I'll just crib firelance's list and change a few things:

• epic battles between good and evil
• where the party has the advantage if they think well, plan well, or use good tactics. Prefer there to be some measurable threat, otherwise I just wave the combat off as done.
• where the party can do cool moves
• where the party's opponent can do cool moves
• using lots of rules as support
• with miniatures if the combat is complicated enough to warrant it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I like tactical combat, and probably wouldn't play in a (D&D) game that didn't use a mat and minis and all the combat rules. I also, however, like cool cinematic options, so I try to let my players attempt anything they want to attempt within the framework of the game, creating rules on the fly to deal with strange situations.

In terms of difficulty, I like a mix. I think it's not recognized often enough that players like to dominate sometimes. D&D is about being larger than life, and Conan didn't fear for his life every time he drew his sword. So I tend to mix encounters that the players can easily wade through with encounters that are challenging, and then spice things up with the very occasional encounter that can, if players don't think well and play smart, result in PC death(s). I'd say I stick pretty close to a 131 ratio on those.

 

[The_Gneech]

I'd like to know how you prefer your combat in RPG's, D&D in particular. Do you like epic battles between good and evil, where the party almost always has the advantage and can do cool moves? Do you prefer a grittier, gorier fight with lots of death? How about a realistic combat from a historical standpoint? 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? Do you enjoy using lots of rules as support or do you see the rulesbooks as a menace to your creative mind? Do you like to use miniatures during combat, or perhaps whiteboards? Or your imagination alone? (I can go on for a while, but I think you know where this is heading).

Yes.

Just not all of them at once.

-The Gneech

 

[scadgrad]

I like combat to speed along as quickly as possible and that's one of the main reasons I switched to C&C. There are still enough tactics to make it interesting, but most combats flow by about 50% quicker (or more). In a year of playing C&C Meets 3.5, we've really only had one Bog Down Melee.

One of the things that I enjoy most about combat is the narrative opportunity. I'm not sure why, perhaps it's because C&C isn't really a blow-by-blow system, but I find that I enjoy this narrative aspect much more than I did in my 3.X campaigns. The same is true for Call of Cthulu. I guess I just prefer a quicker combat resolution mechanic in my RPGs. In all cases though I look to classic Sword and Sorcery for my narrative inspiration. It's not that I don't like the idea of cinematic melee--Hero, Kill Bill, and CTHD being big faves of mine at the moment--I guess it's just the image of men w/ chain mail and broad swords suggests a narrative style more in line w/ REH and others.

YMMV
Offer void where prohibited.

 

[Hjorimir]

I like combat to be dangerous and meaningful while being both crunchy and cinematic. If you play your cards right, you can have it all.

 

[Shade]

I'd like to know how you prefer your combat in RPG's, D&D in particular. Do you like epic battles between good and evil, where the party almost always has the advantage and can do cool moves? Do you prefer a grittier, gorier fight with lots of death? How about a realistic combat from a historical standpoint? 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? Do you enjoy using lots of rules as support or do you see the rulesbooks as a menace to your creative mind? Do you like to use miniatures during combat, or perhaps whiteboards? Or your imagination alone? (I can go on for a while, but I think you know where this is heading).

Please describe your groups combat style (or your own preferred way, if they differ). Thanks!

I like a variety of combat, but I prefer battles close to the party's level, so that they are both challenged but have a reasonalbe chance of success. I hate facing encounters that are too deadly (due to a much higher CR/EL) without adequate hints or warnings.

I prefer the use of a battleboard and some sort of mins/tokens/pen marks to indicate combatants' and obstacles' positions.

I enjoy using lots of rules and tactics, and prefer lots of jumping, tumbling, bluffing, disarming, tripping, etc...anything more than just "I attack monster". I also like action points as an option. And I like interesting battlefields with different terrain types and obstacles.

 

[Wombat]

First and most important, I like combat to be the exception, not the rule. Serious combat should happen perhaps once a session; small skirmishes a bit more often, but preferrably not. When a person dies, I like there to be implications to that death, whether it be PC or NPC.

That being said, for the most part I like combat fast, furious, highly dangerous (this does not map well in D20), over, and done with. Combat that lasts more than half an hour of real time to adjudicate just gets boring. Once in a while a longer combat can still be fun (ask my group about The Pirates On The Island, where we spent nearly half the six-hour session in running combat -- very tense night all around!), but that is a rare exception.

Combat should not be strictly, "I move, I hit". There should be some serious options for tumbling, scuffling, and other non-hitting activities in combat.

As for minis ... meh. I'll use them in D20 since the system more or less requires it, but it has never felt right. I don't like the "gods' eye view" of combat; having been involved in several SCA wars, paintball skirmishes, and some truly odd LARPS, I have come to realize how poorly such a system simulates how most combat works. People/targets appear and disappear, depending on landscape, helmets, weather, and the like; sounds seem to come from all over; split-second tactics are useful, but strategy flies right out the window for the guy on the ground; weird things come to your aid and hinderance all the time. And, believe me Critical Fumbles HAPPEN! Until you've seen a guy in the SCA coming at you with a great sword, and you know you are dead, dead, dead, and then suddenly a blackbird flies right in front of his helmet and he trips, you've never really dealt with fumbles...

So I prefer a bit of cinematic fun to the combat, a bit of reality, quick combat with some good options, fumbles to match critical hits, and less of an emphasis on the mechanics (and miniatures) and more of an emphasis on the roleplaying.

...of why I'm out of step with most of the rpg community...