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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5742352" data-attributes="member: 54877">It seems to me that, "single action, you can either attack, move, or do some other thing," is one obvious place for a game designer to start an RPG combat design. So if it is all that, in all the hundreds of games done so far, surely someone has tried it, liked it, and used it. Someone name me a published game, which has been played by at least a few people, that uses that model, with each creature taking a turn (i.e. not side vs side, which has its own set of benefits and drawbacks). Then we can talk about how well it works, and what if anything it does to supplement that model (i.e. different abstraction of movement or extra rewards for positioning or whatever).  GURPS might qualify, but for bonus points, name one that does this without using extremely short and limited turns. Hero System doesn't count, because the nature of the speed chart is such that characters are seldom each taking equivalent turns.  In the dim recesses of my mind, I think I remember some wargames that used this model, and didn't work particularly well. Or maybe a few that used it ok, because you'd sacrifice a few units to pin down movement so that your other units can kill. (An overly crowded Ogre or GEV map could be like that at times, though artillery tended to discourage such crowding except in a rush.) But that was a long time ago, and doesn't necessarily translate to an RPG design.  (Units representing multiple individuals, and multiple units, changes everything.  After all, "Fire and Movement" is really "some fire while others move--then we swap" because moving and firing in a unit is difficult.  It seldom translates well to a handful of people in a skirmish.)</blockquote>

Verification