Re: Durations of Edges/Bonus, Unrelated Actions, Combat

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:13:23 +0100 (BST)

Clay Luther:
> 3) On our first night, combat proved quite exhausting for us and a
> little tedious. First, let's talk about the tediousness. Because the
> players were closely matched to the opposition, they were NOT willing to
> wager extravagent AP bids in combat; rather, they were happy to let the
> default 3AP carry them along. And even though the opposition was more
> agressive (high AP wagers), the combat drug on out for 30 minutes or
> more as the sides *whittled* each other down. This tediousness lead to
> exhaustion because we were trying to describe the combat vividly --
> being good "story-tellers" -- but not *specifically brutally*, as the HW
> rules advise. After a while, with our mental stores of creatively
> describing minor combat results were exhausted, combat descriptions
> degenerated to "I swing using 3AP -- oh, you win, he forfeits 3AP".

This is a concern I definitely share. It's hard to get players to bid high just by 'motivational techniques': the game gives them a 'perverse incentive' to bid low, in particular if they have at least a marginal advantage, and aren't planning on blowing lots of HPs. It would be better if the game encouraged them to bid higher, or was at least more neutral in that respect. This is tweakable, but it requires work...

> 4) During this major, drawn out battle, one player said "This game is
> not detailed enough!" in exasperation. He meant, he really missed
> graphic combat explanations.

Basically, the solution to this is as per the above: bribe your players into giving graphic accounts of what they do in combat, and stake high to match, by giving them suitably high bonuses so to do. Make this just a narrative convention, or formalise it somewhat in terms of 'combat maneouvers' et al., to taste.

> As a group, they found the idea of
> whittling an opponent to "Dazed", then being forced to take the risk
> action of a coup de grace to actually kill the opponent somewhat
> distasteful. To paraphrase one player, "I'd rather chop his head off in
> one mighty blow than stab a down opponent through the heart."

I have mixed feelings on this one. HW implicitly assumes that combat isn't especially lethal, _and_ that both sides are not unlikely to take prisoners and such, which is indeed a common genre convention. But not a universal one, I agree. OTOH, I find it personally annoying for players to look for 'tasteful' ways of offing opponents; he's just as dead, and the head-chopper is still just as responsible, whether or not he was 'down', merely 'dazed', or attempting to remove your own head. (I'm reminded of the old 'adventure serial' convention of the bad guy always conveniently falling off a cliff.)

> And I've
> discussed the session *at length* with two of the players who have a
> good grasp of the rules and mathematics. They have some very
> interesting points about how the HW rules actually *discourage* bold and
> cinematic action because of the riskiness of APs. Since my players have
> always been cautious, tactical types (they are excellent CoC
> investigators), they are afraid that HW combats will be very, very dull
> affairs for us.
>
> If anyone would like a really detailed opinion on this, I'd be happy to
> connect you with the sharpest player via email, who can detail his
> concerns with the mechanics much more eloquently.

Sure. Better yet, if any of your players have a suggestion as to how to 'fix' same...

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail