One of my biggest disappointments when I play Fantasy RPGs as a player is that it all comes down to combat.
It often starts out very promising; there's a story afoot, a chance for exploration, possible character interactions, and then...the fighting starts. The problem is, it never stops. It's followed by another encounter with hostiles, and then another, and before long everything you do ends in violence.
Sure, Combat is a major element of TRPGs in general and let's be clear, I'm not a gaming pacifist who never wants to see some action of the physical conflict variety. It just feels as if in most of the Fantasy games [specifically] I've been in, that's all there is.
At best, World-Building and Character Interaction feel a little on the light side. At worst, the game is just one boring fight bleeding into the next, none of them particularly distinctive or memorable. Fantasy, for all its tactical features, wide-range of weaponry and armor, and of course magical spells, features some really boring combat.
I'm not sure what it is about Fantasy combat but I usually find it very bland and flat. It doesn't feel kinetic or dynamic as I've suggested incorporating in the past. Part of the issue, in my experience and opinion, is that Fantasy combat is always so heavily regulated. The place where the crunch is loudest in these sorts of games is often in the encounter mechanics, making fights long, slow, and tedious.
There is also the typical Pass/Fail nature of the Attack Rolls in the majority of Fantasy games. As I've discussed elsewhere, this often results in a situation where if you didn't build your character 'correctly', you are likely to miss fairly often. A miss, followed by a round of other people's actions, followed by the high chance of missing again results in wondering why you're even there. In a small party of 3 players and their PCs this might not be so bad but imagine a [decently sized] group of 5 or more participants. It can be grueling for even the most patient of gamers.
So what can be done?
Don't play Fantasy Games. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
What? You want more? Fine. I've really spoiled you all...
I think some ways of improving the bog standard Fantasy fight are probably pretty obvious; changing up the terrain, actually making said terrain matter mechanically, using opponents placed above and/or below the battlefield, and use of evocative descriptions. Nothing you haven't heard of or thought of before.
That said, please bare in mind that 'mechanically mattering terrain' need not only hinder or impede the PCs. It should be something they can use as easily as it might be used against them. I've had PCs in snow covered Tundra slip on the icy ground or have their actions penalized because of the frigid cold but also let them throw snowballs at opponents and escape by sliding down the snow covered hills on their shields.
Battle in the sky, underwater, while swinging across a jungle chasm on vines, or any other non-typical way of trading blows with adversaries!
I also think a Fantasy game that functions less like a 50+ year old wargame and more like...get this...a Fantasy game...might be really fun. I always find it hilarious that in a game of flying carpets, elves shooting fiery balls of death from their hands, and treasure chests that try to eat you, so much attention is paid to...teehee...tactical realism. Realism! Bwahahaha-ha-ha!
Realistic? Muwa-Bwahahaha-ha-ha!
It's pretty clear to me that most Game Designers haven't been in any real fights. I'm not talking about serving in the military; that is a completely different experience that has very little to do with the kind of combat you see in most RPG campaigns. Complex strategy doesn't really apply when five or six people jump four others in a dark, dank tunnel or the your group of pals is suddenly accosted by a bear-sized chicken covered in scales with a snake-like tail.
Let's see some moves like finding that one weak spot in a Dragon's armored body or spraying an area with holy water or greek fire to watch a horde of undead burn. Sure, it's super exciting to have the power of...um..*read read read*...not getting a penalty in Mounted Combat. Cool. Wow. I am beside myself with how great that -yawn- is.
Finally (for now...), give the players something else to do. What can happen in your world of mystery, magic, and monsters shouldn't be limited to just stabbing things or bonking them on the head. Yes Combat can be great for getting the blood pumping and the mind racing but if that is all there is it makes the game seem simplistic and unimaginative.
It's like looking out upon a grand vista of wonders and saying, "Can you believe all this is open to us? Let's go find an animal and hit it with a rock."
Really? That's the best Fantasy can do?
Humans. *Shakes head*
In a follow-up post I will discuss other things PCs could be doing other than fighting. I will also introduce an idea that I've talked about before but which appears to blow people's minds when I bring it up.
See you soon,
AD
Barking Alien
I like the write up, I can sympathize with all of it I have solved a lot by running sandbox games at the with strategic layers. Traveller and Dungeon Crawl Classics are excellent for having characters do more than combat and having combat be interesting and punchy, respectively. A lot of my players are getting slowly deprogrammed from years of bog-standard D&D and some struggle with even wanting autonomy but we are working on it.
ReplyDeleteI concur that Traveller is especially good at having non-combat activities for the PCs to engage with and frankly, I think that is true of most Science Fiction games in general. There is very little direct combat in my Star Trek campaign for example, though there is always a little as we're very Original Series focused.
Deletethat was me.
ReplyDeleteD&D and its kin work with the idea that combat encounters are needed to wear down the PCs and make them spend resources. So, if combat feels like a grind, it's because it is.
ReplyDeleteI learned long ago that combat and action are not synonyms. I don't think this is exclusive to fantasy, but modern and sci Fi settings often have more interactive environments by default.
"...modern and sci Fi settings often have more interactive environments by default."
DeleteYes, that's basically what I'm driving at. It seems much easier, perhaps one might even say more 'built in' to other genres. Even Superheroes believe or not. Sure, there are a ton of battles in Supers but there is also investigating crimes, interaction with the NPCs tied to ones Secret Identity, etc.
Well, I think it is easier for us players and GMs to figure out how to do some stuff in a modern or pseudo-modern setting. But I meant the literal environment when it comes to action and combat: you know your typical office building has power lines, elevators, fire extinguisers, boiler rooms, air conditioning ducts, security cameras, maybe a garage... That helps to imagine paths of action other that just fighting the bad guys until one side drops.
DeleteI see what you're saying.
DeleteA good observation and one that illustrates why I find Dungeons, specifically the man-made underground structures typical to D&D and the like, to be so uninteresting.
There is literally nothing to them [more often than not] beyond stone corridors and rooms. There's no power running through them, no plumbing, no fire extinguishers mounted to the walls...nothing that can really be used and interacted with in combat.
To combat or not to combat...
ReplyDeleteWhy does one play an RPG? I'm not talking about the person running the game (the GM)...I know THEIR particular reason for participating. But the PLAYERS at the table...what are they getting out of it? Why are they doing it? Why are they choosing THIS PARTICULAR PASTIME over other ones?
Answer THAT question and, I think, you'll have an answer for the prominence if combat in fantasy RPGs.
Having raised two imaginative children (and having been an "imaginative child" myself once), I've had plenty of opportunities to play make believe games...games where we pretended to be people other than what we are, playing in situations that are fantastical whether based on a particular genre or IP of made up out of our heads. Many of these make believe adventures do NOT feature combat...there may be struggles in these pretend scenarios (versus the imagined elements or situations in which we place ourselves) or not, but combat is wholly unnecessary to having a good time.
However, in such games, we find that rules or dice are wholly unnecessary as well.
Rules provide procedures for adjudicating outcomes. Randomizers provide a way to inject chance and mystery into situations. You COULD have rules and such "fortune" mechanics (so-called) for a non-combat oriented game, but (in my opinion) the page count of systems would probably be much smaller than your average RPG, with the bulk taken up by setting/color considerations.
[Story Engine is a good example]
Anyway. I understand your frustration with (most) RPGs coming back to the "hitting thing with a rock" raison d'etre. But RPGs are (for the most part) descended from adventure games/fiction. An adventure has risk and danger and fighting in it. There have been RPGs that aren't as invested in combat...I own many. They're just not very popular. Because you can get THAT kind of entertainment without resorting to a big book of rules and procedures.
Just two things on this. There are a lot of dangerous challenges that are not combat in my traveller game like fixing a relay on the outside of a damaged ship. There are more noncombat dangers in the world than there are combat risks, but players in a system built with common abilities don’t often have as much fun, making climb checks and stuff like that. You’re right about the density of the rules in a game like Dnd and many othersbecause of bulk of rules are around those combat abilities. But I do believe we need rules to be playing a game
DeleteA Prominent OSR person has recently suggested that there are two types of RPG‘s right now and we should be careful not to mix them together when discussing these things because they are separate and different and that is the rules light narrative community versus the crunchy or traditional RPG community. So when you talk about not needing rules, you start to talk about playing an entirely different genre of game than the one we might be talking about here
While that might be the case - certainly a crunch-heavy game that is light on roleplay is a very different beast from a roleplay-heavy game that's light on rules - there is also a bit of a false dichotomy here, an 'either or' fallacy.
DeleteI don't agree with or believe in the idea that there are only two types of RPGs. There are dozens of types. Maybe dozens and dozens of variations on the idea of how an RPG might work and hundreds of games depicting the shades in-between the extremes.
Personally, I like a light-to-medium crunch game with flexible rules that isn't overly combat centric. Easy of prep and execution is key. For the time being, the Smurfs RPG is hitting the sweet spot for me, though my Ghostbusters hack (combing the original WEG D6 game, InSpectres, and ALIEN) is coming in a close second.