Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7555810" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think that what you call &quot;the standard RPG approach&quot; is not &quot;standard&quot; once you look beyond D&amp;D and some of its derivatives or games it inspired.In Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic, (i) every character gets a reaction against every action, so there is no &quot;round robin&quot; in your sense, and (ii) in many cases multiple foes are bundled mechanically as &quot;mobs&quot;.There are plenty of other PCs in which foes get bundled, and/or action economy is not &quot;round robin&quot;. Even in the D&amp;D family of games, 4e exhibits this with its use of swarms.As far as I can tell, by &quot;trad game&quot; you mean D&amp;D and its offshoots. It doesn't get more &quot;trad&quot; than Traveller - my rulebooks are a 1978 printing. But the Traveller rules don't, in general, define the &quot;physics&quot; of any gaming world. They tell us how to resolve action declarations.The combat rules of Traveller are the most wargame-y part of the system, but under the Ship's Boat skill description there is an abstract resolution system for escaping from a starship encounter that could be straight out of some contemporary game. It would be very easy to apply that system to escaping multiple enemy vessles (eg impose a DM of to the evasion check per extra vessel).My DW play experience is not great, but what you say here is not true at all. The GM doesn't just get to declare that PC A is a danger to PC B. The GM introducing dangers is a &quot;soft&quot; move. So something has to have already gone wrong in an action attempted by A and/or B for the scenario you describe to arise.More generally: there are RPGs out there with cinematic combat. Prince Valiant is another that I've been playing recently. It seems odd to ask &quot;what do people think about RPGs and cinematic combat&quot; and then decline to talk about actual RPGs that actually have it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7555810, member: 42582"] I think that what you call "the standard RPG approach" is not "standard" once you look beyond D&D and some of its derivatives or games it inspired. In Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic, (i) every character gets a reaction against every action, so there is no "round robin" in your sense, and (ii) in many cases multiple foes are bundled mechanically as "mobs". There are plenty of other PCs in which foes get bundled, and/or action economy is not "round robin". Even in the D&D family of games, 4e exhibits this with its use of swarms. As far as I can tell, by "trad game" you mean D&D and its offshoots. It doesn't get more "trad" than Traveller - my rulebooks are a 1978 printing. But the Traveller rules don't, in general, define the "physics" of any gaming world. They tell us how to resolve action declarations. The combat rules of Traveller are the most wargame-y part of the system, but under the Ship's Boat skill description there is an abstract resolution system for escaping from a starship encounter that could be straight out of some contemporary game. It would be very easy to apply that system to escaping multiple enemy vessles (eg impose a DM of to the evasion check per extra vessel). My DW play experience is not great, but what you say here is not true at all. The GM doesn't just get to declare that PC A is a danger to PC B. The GM introducing dangers is a "soft" move. So something has to have already gone wrong in an action attempted by A and/or B for the scenario you describe to arise. More generally: there are RPGs out there with cinematic combat. Prince Valiant is another that I've been playing recently. It seems odd to ask "what do people think about RPGs and cinematic combat" and then decline to talk about actual RPGs that actually have it. [/QUOTE]

Verification