• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

No More Boring Combats Ever (Edition-Neutral!)

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
This is a little maniacal rambling, but I think there's a good idea or two imbedded in here. Basically, I have a bit of a brainstorm about how to avoid all boring combats in any game that you play ever.

I am kind of sitting on this idea, and it's a little too good to let hide in my Final Fantasy Zero blog, no matter [how pretty it may be there.

That second link is a direct download of FFZ's current combat chapter, but you don't need to read the whole thing, because what I'm getting at is bigger than any particular ruleset.

It's kind of a perspective to have on combat.

Specifically, it's a very narrative perspective on combat. You could reverse-engineer some rules based around them (FFZ does!), but here's the basic idea:

Anybody who has had any sort of education on narrative structure can tell you that the basis of any story is conflict, and that a conflict has basically three parts: an intro, a period of building tension, and a climax.

The reason any combat that I have seen becomes unsatisfying is because it violates this structure. Combats need this structure to be exciting. Most combats in D&D's "first one to zero" kind of system have this structure by default: you meet the enemy (intro), you whittle at each others' hp (tension), and then one side starts causing the other to drop (climax!). Hit points and an adventuring party versus a monster party (instead of just one guy) model this structure almost accidentally.

Most unsatisfying combats are unsatisfying because they violate this structure.

Save or Die? There is no climax, there is no tension, it's just intro-over.

Swingy? It's ALL climax. There's no intro. There's no building. It's just BOOM.

Scry-Buff-Teleport? Again, we're overlooking the building tension. The scry sort of gives you an intro, but it's really impersonal.

Grind? You're missing the climax. It says hello, and then just kind of winds down. The decision to cut HP or defenses basically cuts down on the time of "we've won, but we still have at least 4 more rounds left while we mop this up."

So here's the verdict: to make combat exciting, you have three parts.

An Introduction where the sides are established. You find out who is who, you get a sense of their obvious, constant powers, everybody decides they want to kill each other. One or two rounds.

A period of Building Action, like in a narrative, should be the biggest section. Most of the rounds are building action. During this period, maybe you start flashing hidden abilities, the HP's dwindle, maybe one side has to go on the defensive....basically, the enemies present problems that the PC's need to solve, and how they solve it will tell you how well they'll fare in the next part...

The Climax should knock your socks off. It'll start beginning at about the time that the first person reaches 0 hps. Powerful abilities that might cripple you after use, or raising the dead before our eyes, or (especially in FFZ's case) limit breaks that act like eleventh hour superpowers. Surprises, twists, turns...last-ditch, all-or-nothing efforts...

FFZ milks this for a lot, but it doesn't really matter what game you're playing, as long as it has a "first one to zero" kind of resolution system.

So, how do you avoid combats that are all-or-nothing, or that are a whole lot of nothing, no matter what game you play?

Give it the same structure that a story has. Beginning, middle, end. Light the fuse, watch it burn, EXPLODE.

The idea is to pace combat to that structure.

Of course, this doesn't really apply to boring, resource-draining mook combats that the party is expected to win and is only going through to see how many healing surges or charges from their wand they're using up. But those combats aren't supposed to be that interesting anyway. Any combat that you want to be interesting in, I'm telling you, apply this structure, and it will be better for it.

So how would you implement it?

Here's what FFZ has to say about the idea in general:
[sblock=Final Fantasy Zero, Combat document, Pg2-3]
Introduction in Combat: Combat is introduced rather suddenly, usually, with a violent action taken by at least one member of the party. During the first few rounds, combatants exchange banter and learn about the main abilities (and themes) of their enemies. Usually the introduction lasts a round or two.

Tension in Combat: Tension rises in combat as the HP totals dwindle and quickly approach zero, as the parties usually begin their more defensive actions, having read their enemies well, or perhaps begin to formulate strategies, ways of definitively piercing their foes’ defenses. Often, this is the stage when new abilities are unleashed and boasts are made.

Climax in Combat: It all reaches a head as one side begins to have party members drop. This is climactic because it robs one side of actions, and starts to heavily swing things in favor of the side with the most standing. Here, things begin to get desperate, people are bloodied and their friends are dropping, the crisis level is rising. This is often when limit breaks are unleashed, or when powerful recovery and healing makes every attack ineffective. Traps may be sprung, parties may begin to flee, or the villain’s maniacal laughter may begin… The final decision is reached when one side has no new abilities or surprises left up their sleeve that their enemies haven’t already counteracted. When you have countered every assault your enemy can throw at you, it’s all over but for the mop-up. Initiative may even dissolve once a clear victor is achieved – because you’ll start the next combat at full power, it’s not necessary to roll dice for every mop-up. A combat check (see below) may also help resolve this situation quickly.
[/sblock]

Here's the practical advice for most D&D games:

Round 1-2: Intro. Have a lot of variety in abilities. In 4e, use a lot of different at-wills, and have monsters do it, too.
Round 3-6: Tension. Start using special attacks. Use defenses. Try to gain an edge. Keep trying something new every round.
Round 7-8: Climax. If you're loosing, unleash your Super Ability (in 4e, your encounter or daily powers, or a monster's recharge powers, or a special ability you've given them). If you're winning, prepare for the other side to unleash THEIR Super Ability. Be prepared for sudden traps, or reinforcements, or a somehow drastically changing battlefield. Basically, WOW them.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

blargney the second

blargney the minute's son
Neat idea! I'll try applying it in my game this weekend. We're starting the big invasion in the final chapter of Tides of Dread, so I'll try it out for both individual encounters and the entire battle.
 



ruemere

Adventurer
This is a little maniacal rambling, but I think there's a good idea or two imbedded in here. Basically, I have a bit of a brainstorm about how to avoid all boring combats in any game that you play ever.

I am kind of sitting on this idea, and it's a little too good to let hide in my Final Fantasy Zero blog, no matter [how pretty it may be there. [...]

You forgot about transformations into superpowered forms and shouting names of special attack techniques.
Also, given that anime/manga genre explored that particular approach ages ago, you should introduce several modern improvements on this idea:

- only boss battles should be resolved in this way, intermediate and beginner battles should only serve as way to illustrate coolness of low-tier special abilities
- the important aspect is character's resolve. If a character cannot properly show emotions, he cannot access high-tier abilities
- if you are worried about TPK, remember to keep Disposable Girlfriend near party (if she gets hurt or dies at the right moment, you are free to let appropriate characters to let their anguish loose)
- there is always time for introspection - the later into the battle a hero rediscovers eternal truths, the more power she should gain

regards,
Ruemere
 

This analysis works fine if you are telling a story. A story benefits from conflicts that progess from introduction to tension to climax.

From a roleplaying perspective though, the characters are not there to tell a story featuring dramatic tension and resolution. The characters are living in the world where these conflicts take place and they (and thier opponents) are trying to resolve these conflicts in thier favor to the best of thier ability.

The dramatic tension build up in a roleplaying game is awesome when it happens naturally. Engineering play specifically to achieve this effect changes the whole play experience.
 

Dausuul

Legend
The dramatic tension build up in a roleplaying game is awesome when it happens naturally. Engineering play specifically to achieve this effect changes the whole play experience.

There is no such thing as "happening naturally" in the context of an RPG, unless you mean that events flow from the way the rules are set up. If the rules are set up in such a way as to produce this kind of combat, then such combats will "happen naturally" all the time. If not, not.
 

Harr

First Post
Good stuff... I can already see my encounters improving by laying them on an intro-tension-climax skeleton! Funnily enough I have always had this as a guide when thinking out whole adventures, but it never occurred to me that the same thing could be scaled down and applied to single encounters as well... and given how long a single encounter can potentially take in 4e, I suspect it might turn into a requirement pretty much. Definitely one of those really simple, yet really effective ideas.

Also, I think this kind of thing could/should be applied to pretty much all major encounters, even non-combat ones like exploration, investigation and 'social' stuff.
 

There is no such thing as "happening naturally" in the context of an RPG, unless you mean that events flow from the way the rules are set up. If the rules are set up in such a way as to produce this kind of combat, then such combats will "happen naturally" all the time. If not, not.

What I meant was that a conflict resolution system that depends on chance ( die rolls) will sometimes produce storylike tension and sometimes not. In order to inject any kind of guarantee of dramatic tension then the conflict will have elements of pre-determination which is not desirable for me. Others may decide differently.
 

Jack7

First Post
I like the thread and I like the idea. It would have to be modified by conditions of course, an ambush prescribes certain combat conditions that a set to prepare an already perceived charge does not.

But overall I like KM's ideas.
 

Remove ads

Top