Should combat be more chaotic?

[Jon_Dahl]

It's your turn.
You take a good look at the battle map and pause to ponder. Your friends around the table try to influence you with their opinions... And you agree with them. After a careful consideration you decide to cast an area spell. Smoothly you place that 20 ft. radius spell so that it won't touch your companions and cause maximum damage to your enemies.

Since it's a roleplaying game, should we act out combats in a more immersive way? Should there be less comprehensive descriptions of enemies and what is happening around you? Should there be more mistakes and "friendly fire"-incidents? Should everyone tell immediately without hesitation what they're going to do, since the combat rounds are very short? Should considerations and calculations be banned from combats?

I usually don't let players backtrack, unless we had some miscommunication ("so there are five giants, not just one?"). This sometimes seems a bit brutal to my players... And also I like to enforce fumble-rules in combat, but they're not deadly. In my games there will be no fatalities if four 1st-level warriors fight wooden dummies for 2 minutes.

Should GM enforce the sense of panic and confusion in combat, or is it much better to leave this up to the players? Enforcing hectic combats can leave some players bitter if they can't keep up, but on the other hand it's a roleplaying game and things that help immersion should be underlined.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

As a player I'm no fan of too chaotic situations, as my PCs fate should be (mostly) in my hand. I want to make meaningful decisions for him. On a meta-game level I'm OK with the other players giving me some input, but I could live without it, too.

AS GM I might like to infuse some chaos in a game situation - as long at the situation at the table doesn't get too chaotic. My players provide me with some choice chaos experiences anyway; I don't have to go anywhere to have this result.

Backtracking is often the result of mis-communication. In such a case I don't have a problem allowing it as long as the situation hasn't changed drastically and/or too many actions have taken place in the meantime.

 

[S'mon]

Well I don't allow players infinite time to decide their actions, if they haven't decided when their turn comes up I say "You delay" and move on. I try not to stress out the less able players though.

 

[NewJeffCT]

It's your turn.
You take a good look at the battle map and pause to ponder. Your friends around the table try to influence you with their opinions... And you agree with them. After a careful consideration you decide to cast an area spell. Smoothly you place that 20 ft. radius spell so that it won't touch your companions and cause maximum damage to your enemies.

Since it's a roleplaying game, should we act out combats in a more immersive way? Should there be less comprehensive descriptions of enemies and what is happening around you? Should there be more mistakes and "friendly fire"-incidents? Should everyone tell immediately without hesitation what they're going to do, since the combat rounds are very short? Should considerations and calculations be banned from combats?

I usually don't let players backtrack, unless we had some miscommunication ("so there are five giants, not just one?"). This sometimes seems a bit brutal to my players... And also I like to enforce fumble-rules in combat, but they're not deadly. In my games there will be no fatalities if four 1st-level warriors fight wooden dummies for 2 minutes.

Should GM enforce the sense of panic and confusion in combat, or is it much better to leave this up to the players? Enforcing hectic combats can leave some players bitter if they can't keep up, but on the other hand it's a roleplaying game and things that help immersion should be underlined.

I agree that combat should be more chaotic. I've had situations where I have not used a battlemat and just used the tabletop for a combat encounter and it works out fine - I have 4 small (3 foot) tape measures I got from Wal-Mart several years back just for this sort of purpose. So, rather than move 6 squares, a person moves 6 inches in any direction. If Warhammer can go without a grid, but still do flanking and have area spells and template effects, I don't see why D&D can't with usually far fewer miniatures.

However, a wizard dropping a fireball is often a genius level intellect, so I allow them leeway in terms of spell placement, since nobody at my table has an 18+ INT (save me, the DM, with my 36 INT, of course). Similarly, a cleric with an 18+ Wisdom should be wise enough to know how to place his or her spell properly, while the veteran level 10 fighter can instantaneously decide which attack pattern best makes use of his 18+ Strength.

Also, not everybody at my table is a long time veteran gamer, so may not know which is the best option for them as soon as their turn comes up, since things can change so rapidly in combat as well (i.e., the sorcerer planned to hit the BBEG's lieutenant with a Scorching Ray, but right before his turn, the party fighter scored a crit on him and took him out.) Especially in older editions where a wizard or cleric or other spellcaster could be choosing from dozens of different spells to cast.

So, I consider a more chaotic battlefield as something nice to have, but not always possible.

 

[Ringlerun]

All combat should be chaotic. It makes for a more interesting encounter if strategy and tactics the characters devise can be derailed mid combat.

1st Edition d6 Star Wars was great at this with the hasting rules. You could literally act so fast the npc had no time to react or vice versa.

This meant that the players were less likely to initiate frivolous combat and devise different strategies for accomplishing their goals. This didnt take combat off the table but it did make the players think before kicking in a door and start blasting.

I have never seen another system that uses haste rules in combat, which is a shame. So i have used line of sight so the players don't have all the information. When using miniatures i only put out what the party can see not the whole battle field. This gives them pause before charging in and allows me as a GM to introduce different elements into the combat.

What i like about line of sight is that the players can get separated from the group. Depending on the terrain, obstacles and vision conditions. They might not be able to see or communicate with each other so it could be very detrimental to the group if the mage starts unleashing area affect spells without knowing were the party is.

 

[Jhaelen]

Yeah, that's something I've been thinking about after reading the Burning Wheel rules.

BW has this interesting approach that you have to write up a 'combat script' that covers all your actions for the next three turns. This means you have to think ahead and cannot be sure about every detail. In fact the situation may have changed completely before your script has even been fully executed. You're also allowed to make small changes later on to compensate but they each cost you precious actions, i.e. it will create a timeslot when you're basically not doing anything except reorient yourself.

In combination with a very lethal system this is imho a very good 'simulation' of the fast-paced, confusing mess that a combat involving multiple opponents can be.

I've been wondering if you could adapt this script approach in some way to fit D&D.

The 'Wings of War' boardgame which simulates dogfights between WWI/II planes is another fun example for an implementation of this idea.

Then again I really enjoy 4e's tactical but somewhat predictable combats. I'm not sure if I wanted to trade this for a more chaotic combat all the time.

 

[billd91]

Back in the 2e days, the primary method of handling initiative was to declare your actions and then roll initiative. Your actions would be performed in initiative order. If what you planned on doing had been invalidated by something happening earlier... you missed out.

And, using group initiative, if the groups tied, you rolled all attacks declared and only after all of that was done you applied the results. The example in the 2e PH was that the wizard could be killed by the very same goblins he puts to sleep with his sleep spell.

Seriously, 2e is a much more awesome game that a lot of people give it credit for.

 

[the Jester]

I'm a big fan of "no kibitzing on your turn" as a tool to increase the speed of decision making and the general level of chaos in combat.

 

[steenan]

I'll answer this question like most questions about my RPG preferences - it depends on what game I'm playing.

In Call of Cthulhu, Unknown Armies or Vampire I definitely want combat to be chaotic, confusing and intense. That fits the genre and mood and works well with simple combat system.

In Dogs in the Vineyard or Nobilis, combat may be chaotic for characters, but I want the players to be able to think what they are doing, what choices they are taking and what it means for them. Brother Jeremiah may shoot his uncle by accident during a heated argument, but it is a result of clear decision between the players.

In D&D or Exalted there are too many rules and tactical choices during combat to play it without a solid structure. If it gets too chaotic, we'll get lost in the numbers. Players are thinking tactically and characters are too, in most cases (though they have less time for it, obviously). While the combat may be described as fast, furious and bloody, there is no real chaos or confusion.

 

[Lanefan]

A typical D&D combat should be much more chaotic than it plays out. 0-1-2e were better at this than 3-4e but still not perfect; there's ways to improve the earlier editions a bit but again still not perfect.

Lan-"fog of war"-efan