Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="uzirath" data-source="post: 7592318" data-attributes="member: 8495">This was a big step for me in my evolution as a GM. In my current games, using GURPS (or variants like DFRPG), I run combats straight about 70% of the time. The other 30%, I cut them off early because the outcome has become clear. Sure, with critical successes and failures, there might be some surprises, but if there's no real drama at stake, I narrate the finish and move on. This has tightened up the session pacing so that we get more done in less time, which works better for busy adults. I adjust this based on the mood of the table and the preferences of my players.While reading this thread, I've been thinking about taking this informal system a step further. A large combat could be broken into scenes that focus on key moments of tactical interest. For example, a battle at the gates of a fortified dungeon could start with a scene about the PCs trying to break down the doors (or trick their way in or whatever). Proceed with a bit of melee in the entryway. Then zoom forward to the arrival or reinforcements or the shaman spellcasters from the barracks. Proceed with more gritty fighting. Then zoom to the mop-up phase when the last survivors try to make a break for it or beg for their lives. With a bit of practice, and feedback from the players, I could see this working rather well.I know that I'm not inventing anything new here, but I sometimes find myself caught between liking both the fluid pacing of narrative systems and the gritty second-by-second combat tactics of GURPS. I'm experimenting with ways to retain the latter while benefiting from elements of the former.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="uzirath, post: 7592318, member: 8495"] This was a big step for me in my evolution as a GM. In my current games, using GURPS (or variants like DFRPG), I run combats straight about 70% of the time. The other 30%, I cut them off early because the outcome has become clear. Sure, with critical successes and failures, there might be some surprises, but if there's no real drama at stake, I narrate the finish and move on. This has tightened up the session pacing so that we get more done in less time, which works better for busy adults. I adjust this based on the mood of the table and the preferences of my players. While reading this thread, I've been thinking about taking this informal system a step further. A large combat could be broken into scenes that focus on key moments of tactical interest. For example, a battle at the gates of a fortified dungeon could start with a scene about the PCs trying to break down the doors (or trick their way in or whatever). Proceed with a bit of melee in the entryway. Then zoom forward to the arrival or reinforcements or the shaman spellcasters from the barracks. Proceed with more gritty fighting. Then zoom to the mop-up phase when the last survivors try to make a break for it or beg for their lives. With a bit of practice, and feedback from the players, I could see this working rather well. I know that I'm not inventing anything new here, but I sometimes find myself caught between liking both the fluid pacing of narrative systems and the gritty second-by-second combat tactics of GURPS. I'm experimenting with ways to retain the latter while benefiting from elements of the former. [/QUOTE]

Verification