Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5859132" data-attributes="member: 386">I think D&D combat was, pre-WotC D&D, pretty abstract: 1-minute combat rounds, all weapons dealing 1d6 damage, that sort of thing.  In a system that abstract it doesn't really make sense to get into the little details.3E and 4E did get detailed but, at the same time, kept a lot of the abstraction.  Instead of saying what your character does and resolving that action, we have a number of rules "modules" that players choose from - be they feats, special attacks, or powers.  These are abstract in the fact that we don't know exactly what the character is doing, but very detailed in how you resolve said action.So instead of resolving an "improvised" action, players look to see which abstract rules module they want to apply to get the desired effect, and then colour in the details of the action as informed by the rules.  Since we aren't asked to think about what the characters are actually doing, but instead what rules to use, we tend not to think about the fictional details that act naturally as a springboard for improvisation.My thinking is that you should either stick with abstract combat or write a system that resolves the detailed actions characters take in combat without abstraction.  In the former case improvisation doesn't matter much (combat is abstract, resolves quickly, and is mostly about resource management); in the latter case, improvisation should take care of itself, since all actions can be considered "improvised".Resolving detailed improvised actions need not be complicated, though will require someone to make judgement calls at the table.</blockquote>

Verification